Comments on: Builders has to obtain CFO to handover flats to buyers http://apartment-bangalore.com/builders-has-to-obtain-cfo-to-handover-flats-to-buyers-358.html Apartments, Houses & Properties in Bangalore Fri, 09 Sep 2011 16:06:25 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Drema Tivis http://apartment-bangalore.com/builders-has-to-obtain-cfo-to-handover-flats-to-buyers-358.html/comment-page-1#comment-5224 Drema Tivis Mon, 07 Mar 2011 13:00:07 +0000 http://apartment-bangalore.com/?p=358#comment-5224 It is often incredible to see exactly where engineering goes and the long run of gaming is no distinct. There are quite a few cool and quite revolutionary technologies arising. There is no way to inform which 1 will make the up coming major wave, but a single point is for confident, it will have some thing to do with finding rid of the remote as we know it! It is often incredible to see exactly where engineering goes and the long run of gaming is no distinct. There are quite a few cool and quite revolutionary technologies arising. There is no way to inform which 1 will make the up coming major wave, but a single point is for confident, it will have some thing to do with finding rid of the remote as we know it!

]]> By: dharmendra http://apartment-bangalore.com/builders-has-to-obtain-cfo-to-handover-flats-to-buyers-358.html/comment-page-1#comment-1413 dharmendra Tue, 16 Nov 2010 10:06:39 +0000 http://apartment-bangalore.com/?p=358#comment-1413 i own 1.1acre land located at gangavati dist koppal which is agriculture land but now i want to get it convert into non agri for commercial as well as residential purpose planning to go for appartment. please guide me what to do & how to do thankig you dharmendra jain 09449061035 i own 1.1acre land located at gangavati dist koppal which is agriculture land but now i want to get it convert into non agri for commercial as well as residential purpose planning to go for appartment. please guide me what to do & how to do
thankig you
dharmendra jain
09449061035

]]> By: vswaminathan http://apartment-bangalore.com/builders-has-to-obtain-cfo-to-handover-flats-to-buyers-358.html/comment-page-1#comment-210 vswaminathan Sun, 26 Jul 2009 09:35:52 +0000 http://apartment-bangalore.com/?p=358#comment-210 This refers to the Post - “Builders has to obtain CFO to handover flats to buyers.” It says: “The Karnataka State Pollution Control Board (KSPCB) will not give Consent For Operation (CFO) to the apartment that does not show the source of drinking water supply. The builders cannot hand over the flats to buyers unless he gets CFO from KSPCB. For apartment buyers, dream home is turning to be elusive or indefinite. The homes are built and payments have been made but flats will be handover only when builder gets CFO from pollution control board.” In this context, as one need to be aware, according to a recent report in the media, a division Bench of the high court has asked the government advocate to seek instructions in the matter of a PIL. The petition has challenged the government’s Circular of April 6, 2009 asking the sub-registrar(s) not to register any property if the applicant does not attach conversion certificate and sanctioned plan from the competent authority. Section 22A of the Registration Act under which the Circular has been issued had itself been declared unconstitutional both by the high court and the apex court. The settled position is, - it is only a civil court, not the registering authority, who has powers to adjudicate upon any such property related issues such as, title, deed, etc. With that as a backdrop, if one turns to the cited Post, it might be seen to likewise give rise to a grave doubt and call for an insightful deliberation on the indicated lines: No doubt, KSPCB is essentially an authority entrusted with certain duties /responsibilities, but they are confined to the area of environment protection / pollution control. Even so, whatever be the compulsions, the poser is - how it is within its powers to restrain /deprive the purchaser of a property from securing due possession after its ‘transfer’ by the builder, In one’s perception, the stance taken by KSPCB gives rise to a very fundamental but serious objection; in that, the authority has obviously assumed to have such power, having failed to realize that thereby it has offended the very basic tenets of the property law. In the context herein, one is tempted to recall the old saying that - “possession is nine tenths of the law”, which is said to be a precept from old English Common Law. As one might imagine, the adage relates to a property owner’s ability to possess, use and dispose it of as he saw fit. It is relative to one person telling another person who he can and cannot utilize his property, rather than a disputed ownership. The mentioned phrase - “possession is nine-tenths of the law” - does imply that a person who holds any property as its rightful owner is the sole controller of that property and may do whatsoever he wishes, without having regard to any one else Perhaps, KSPBC should be in a position to explore and find other ways and means as to how best any erring builder should be proceeded against individually; that is, without impairing or offending in any manner the lawful right to possession, of a person after he has duly become the property owner in the eyes of law. This refers to the Post – “Builders has to obtain CFO to handover flats to buyers.” It says:
“The Karnataka State Pollution Control Board (KSPCB) will not give Consent For Operation (CFO) to the apartment that does not show the source of drinking water supply. The builders cannot hand over the flats to buyers unless he gets CFO from KSPCB.
For apartment buyers, dream home is turning to be elusive or indefinite. The homes are built and payments have been made but flats will be handover only when builder gets CFO from pollution control board.”
In this context, as one need to be aware, according to a recent report in the media, a division Bench of the high court has asked the government advocate to seek instructions in the matter of a PIL. The petition has challenged the government’s Circular of April 6, 2009 asking the sub-registrar(s) not to register any property if the applicant does not attach conversion certificate and sanctioned plan from the competent authority. Section 22A of the Registration Act under which the Circular has been issued had itself been declared unconstitutional both by the high court and the apex court. The settled position is, – it is only a civil court, not the registering authority, who has powers to adjudicate upon any such property related issues such as, title, deed, etc.
With that as a backdrop, if one turns to the cited Post, it might be seen to likewise give rise to a grave doubt and call for an insightful deliberation on the indicated lines:
No doubt, KSPCB is essentially an authority entrusted with certain duties /responsibilities, but they are confined to the area of environment protection / pollution control. Even so, whatever be the compulsions, the poser is – how it is within its powers to restrain /deprive the purchaser of a property from securing due possession after its ‘transfer’ by the builder, In one’s perception, the stance taken by KSPCB gives rise to a very fundamental but serious objection; in that, the authority has obviously assumed to have such power, having failed to realize that thereby it has offended the very basic tenets of the property law.

In the context herein, one is tempted to recall the old saying that – “possession is nine tenths of the law”, which is said to be a precept from old English Common Law. As one might imagine, the adage relates to a property owner’s ability to possess, use and dispose it of as he saw fit. It is relative to one person telling another person who he can and cannot utilize his property, rather than a disputed ownership.

The mentioned phrase – “possession is nine-tenths of the law” – does imply that a person who holds any property as its rightful owner is the sole controller of that property and may do whatsoever he wishes, without having regard to any one else

Perhaps, KSPBC should be in a position to explore and find other ways and means as to how best any erring builder should be proceeded against individually; that is, without impairing or offending in any manner the lawful right to possession, of a person after he has duly become the property owner in the eyes of law.

]]>