On the contrary, non-BJP states such as Odisha and Bihar have notified rules that are completely in sync with the one notified by the Union housing and poverty alleviation ministry
The housing ministry may claim that the implementation of real estate regulation law (RERA) will start a new era, but details of the draft and final rules notified by state governments, particularly BJP-ruled ones, indicate how provisions notified by Centre have been diluted to keep most of the ongoing projects out of RERA’s ambit.
On the contrary, non-BJP states such as Odisha and Bihar have notified rules that are completely in sync with the one notified by the Union housing and poverty alleviation ministry.
The plight of home buyers due to long delay in completion of real estate projects had triggered massive protest across the country and the Parliament had to pass the law. “With many states intentionally keeping most of the ongoing projects out of RERA’s coverage, there will be little relief for lakhs of home buyers, who have been waiting for their homes for years. Centre should have at least ensured BJP ruled states respected the norms set by the housing ministry,” said Abhay Upadhyay, president of Fight for RERA, the nationwide home buyers’ body, which campaigned for the law.
Till Saturday, 13 states and Union Territories had notified their final rules. The dilutions have happened despite repeated warning of the Centre that such changes are “ultra vires”.
Besides incorporating enough provisions for exclusion of ongoing and incomplete projects, states have also gone steps ahead to tweak norms, which are visibly in favour of the builders.
For example, in Haryana, the draft rules notified last week has completely left out disclosure by builders with regard to sanctioned plan, layout and specifications at the time of booking with all subsequent changes till date. “This omission will give legal colour to all unilateral changes done by builders and will give him escape route from paying compensation to homebuyers,” Upadhyay said.
In the case of Uttar Pradesh, the norms have been diluted under the clause for compounding offence where no specific amount has been mentioned. “There is provision for up to, which means it may even be zero. This will encourage corruption as quantum of money to be paid will be at the discretion of the authority,” Upadhyay pointed out.
In Maharashtra, a provision has been included to allow builders to take out to divest from a project after issuance of occupancy certificate. This means the builder can take out his entire investment before completion of common areas, facilities and amenities.