Gpas in Cooperativehouse Building Societies at Chandigarh : an Introspection

GPAs in Cooperative House building Societies at Chandigarh: An Introspection

By Satish Chandra Sharma M.A. (Eco),

General Secretary, Chandigarh Social Welfare Council.

Mobile: 9888-255-128. Email: sharma.ambakripa@gmail.com

15000 families which hold occupancy rights in cooperative housing societies at Chandigarh had been in for a harrowing experience. Unlike their counter parts that have purchased property on the power of attorney basis in other parts of the city, GPAs in the cooperative society flats had to suffer on various counts. They were first fleeced at the hands of the autocratic management of the societies and later put to bear harsh attitude at the hands of the Chandigarh administration.

Undoubtedly, the projects of the societies were completed with the funding made available by the GPAs. Till the funding was required, the managements had been friendly to them. The projects once completed were taken charge by the original allottees, who despite having sold the flats on GPA still continued to play the shots in managing the affairs of the society.

The concept though mooted some two decades back had been facing from many problems since the time it got floated. There were litigations; encroachments on the land acquired for allotment to societies had been rampant. Though the scheme was floated in 1991 with a view put available land to optimum use, yet societies registered under the scheme could not allotment of land till the year 2000.62 Societies were to get land in the third phase sectors benefiting 7373 members. Question was raised in the Parliament by the then local MP in order to pressurize Chandigarh Administration to allot land to such eligible societies.

While the allotment of land was made to the societies, Chandigarh Housing Board had incorporated unrelated outdated rules applied in isolation to govern the transfer of the flats in them. The statutory rule which allowed transfer of the flat after five years of the allotment of the land was reproduced as a stipulation that read the transfer shall be allowed five years after the society obtained completion certificate from the administration. Completion certificates to societies were withheld owing to minor violations committed by the individual members in the society.

Due to this paradox, societies that had completed the projects continued running from pillar to post to get the completion certificates for them. Interestingly, rules framed in 1996 to allow conversion of leasehold properties into free hold land tenure could not be availed by individual members holding occupancy rights in these societies. It took over 12 years for the administration to clarify that the transfer of flats in societies could be made after 5 years of the allotment of the land instead five years after completion. Administration does not have any answer for the plight suffered by several thousands of GPA holders who could have converted their flats from lease hold tenure to free hold tenure, as the rules so provided.

When land was allotted in 2002, the land price was revised from Rs. 750/- to Rs. 2500/-. The societies could get allotment of the land on free hold basis on payment of Rs. 350/- P SY. The decision of the administration caused much discontentment and was resented. However, the societies opted for the land at the new price and the high court directed the

Societies to pay their balance amount to the Chandigarh Housing Board. Even here the CHB had not corrected itself and made the allotment subject to provision of the Chandigarh Sale of Building Sites Rules 1960  and the  Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation) Act 1952.

So much time had passed by now that the allottee members seemed little interested in the scheme. Either they had acquired properties in the meanwhile or grown up size of the families did not warrant acquisition of the flats. Some simply shrugged owning a flat instead of a complete building In the beginning the allottee member just wanted his deposit money held up for decades back and to recover this they parted the memberships to anyone who could pay back the deposit to them. The transfer was done on the basis of execution of the General Power of Attorney in favour of the buyer.

The psyche of the purchaser had been shaped as transactions in the Chandigarh Housing Board flats and other plots/buildings were routinely done in the city and such instruments of attorney were registered by the Sub Registrar Chandigarh. The spur in the prices of the property in Chandigarh added a spinning factor to the demand of the flats in societies. The demand swelled and the administration watched it but took no corrective measures .While this demand swelled and reached as high a proportion that roughly 50-60% flat properties had changed on the instrument of Power of Attorney.

Finding flats in society flats cheaper in comparison to other available properties in the city, persons who were desirous of owning a flat in the society applied and even obtained permission of their offices to own a flat on the instrument of power of attorney little realizing they in are for a trouble. After investing and on finding that the Banks are reluctant to advance loans on the instrument of the General Power of Attorney, a roll back took place and many of the GPA holders preferred to resell their flats and this did with a help and consideration of the original allottee who cancelled their GPA and made fresh GPAs in favour new intending purchasers.

Property boom also helped to revive the sale purchase of the flats in the societies which continued till the time of handing over of the possession. The management of the societies which had promised moon to the GPA holders started turning their backs on them. The hapless GPAs took to agitations to protect themselves. Managements which constituted of minority of allottee members found ways to keep the GPAs to walls. To make matters worse of the GPAs, Deputy Commissioner cum Registrar Cooperative Societies Chandigarh banned formation of the Resident Welfare Associations taking recourse to rule 45 of Punjab Cooperative Societies Act 1963. It was stated that the measure is aimed at checking “multiplication of disputes” and “some parallel body (RWAs) will definitely create hurdles in the functioning of the management committees

of the society and obstruct to achieve its purpose” .Functioning of the resident welfare associations shall be treated as anti society activity and action shall be taken against this.

This order of the RCS caused furors as this affected thousands of the holders of the GPA in society flats. One rule is that those residing in the societies are members of the society. Second rule is that only the original allottee is considered the member of the society. Cognizance was given to second rule. Original allottee despite selling his flat membership of the instrument of GPA continues to play shots in managing the affairs of the society. GPAs have acquired the flats by spending Lakhs of rupees and yet are denied any rights in the society.

I raised my objections against this rule in the media and submitted that confrontation between managements and GPAs have been unknown. The GPAs have been fleeced by the nexus between the cooperative department, society managements and the contractors handling the projects. I pointed out that the society managements in collusion with the contractors show bogus expenses which are being bore by the hapless GPAs. I demanded that the administration if conducts an enquiry shall find that those who are at the helm of the management bodies are not even the residents of the society. Managing committees cared two hoots to the problems faced by the GPAs, and GPAs themselves could not voice their problems and grievances.

The matter was brought to the notice of the local MP Shri Pawan Kumar Bansal, who promised to look into the matter. Mr. Bansal was submitted a memorandum at a function in sector 49, where his attention was drawn to the plight suffered by the GPAs in the societies. He was requested to prevail upon the administration to rescue hapless GPAs. I urged Shri Bansal to ensure similar rules be applied to society flat owners and the CHB flat owners. In contrast to CHB Sectors, societies have to build, operate and maintain infrastructural facilities themselves for life. No body seemed to care to work out the cost that society resident shall have to pay in addition to normal share of taxes they pay.

The process to regularize the GPAs had really set on my initiative. The administration had already come out with a substitution policy in the societies. The Transfer charges in regard to substituted members were fixed at Rs 50,000/-, Rs. 35000/-, Rs 25000/- for Category A, B, C respectively. Despite these charges were mutually agreed between the Administration and Substituted members of a society, the administration was not ready to accept these charges from the holders of the GPAs to transfer the flats on their names.

Instead the administration sought to apply the Chandigarh Sale of Sites and Building rules 1960 and in consonance with rule 8(C) of the 1960 rules it decided to charge unearned increase from the GPA holders as transfer fee. This was vehement ally resented by me on the ground that this rule being sought to be applied in isolation is legally void. My representation to the UT Administrator failed to evoke any response. Later, Advisor to the Administrator, told me that no review on this count is being undertaken by the administration and that “there is no escape” from this unearned increase being charged.

Ironically in a information supplied to me by the administration it was revealed that though the unearned increase has been computed on the basis of rule 8 (C) of 1960 rule, these “stand repealed” I am at a loss to understand the attitude of the officers of the administration as to why the matter was not considered in the right perspective? The

Finance Department of the Chandigarh Administration chose a day as auspicious as Independence Day i.e. 15th August, 2008 to issue an order on the matter confirming that the unearned increase as stipulated by it stands. Meanwhile, opinion/proposal of the RCS to charge nominal fee of Rs. 10,000/- from GPAs for transfer of flat in their names was ignored by the administration. And the unearned increase clause was approved by UT administrator.

Issuance of this order was widely resented. I had sent representations to Prime Minister Man Mohan Singh, Smt. Sonia Gandhi Chair Person UPA, Shri Shiv Raj Patil, the then Home Minister of India for intervention. Shri Pawan Kumar Bansal was kept well

Informed on the issue and he was requested to get the central intervention in the matter immediately.

The Home Department and Finance Department were under the charge of one officer. During his charge of the departments, no effort seems to have been applied to sort out the legalities of the order. The rule sought to be relied on in the order was unrelated, outdated and applied in isolation. This was legally void was established in the information supplied under the RTI to me. Despite protestations and media attention that the issue got, the matter was never carefully examined.

A big solace came to the GPA when the present incumbent as Home Secretary sympathized with the affected persons and on a representation by me submitted to him the matter was again discussed with RCS and he was asked to put forward a proposal to mitigate the problems of the GPAs. The fresh proposals by the RCS again have recommended nominal charges for transfer of the flat in the name of the GPA. The charges recommended are on the pattern of Haryana where these are Rs. 10,000/- for first transfer. Rs.20,000/- for second transfer and Rs. 30,000/- for the third transfer.

It is now a wait and watch situation for the hapless GPAs who have been miffed at the attitude of the administration.

Media can play a very positive role for the regularization of the issue of GPAs in cooperative society flats and this is aimed at getting your attention as the matter relates to several thousand families. These affected families are from intellectual class and therefore shun sit in strikes or the related forms of protest. Accordingly we all look to your attention for highlighting the gravity of the issue and to put pressure on the administration to devise a transfer policy which pro people and people friendly.

Author has been spearheading the protest and is General Secretary of Chandigarh Social Welfare Council. Visit: http://schandrai.blog.co.in