Meg Nath Sharma
31 January 2014 at 17:36
Dear sir,
I was allotted 2 acres of land by the forest department in the year 1975 for growing cardamom in annual rent.The lease agreement was for 10 years.After the expiry of the lease period i continued to pay the rents to the department and they accepted the rents.In the year 1994 the Department forcefully fenced the boundary of the said plot of land. I have constructed a house and a cowshed amongst others.I went to the Hon'ble High Court of Sikkim as the matters pertains to the State of Sikkim. High Court granted injunction. Thereafter the Department removed the fences and paid me Rs. 12000/- as a damages.Again the Department sometimes in the month of December, 2013 fenced the same plot. I am in possession of the said plot for last 39 years. Kindly suggest me what suit (nature of suit)i should file to get full possession of the said plot of land?
Thankyou
MN Dhungel
V Srinivasan
31 January 2014 at 17:32
Dear Sir
The law of registration requires that any additional agreement / alterations/etc to the original agreement has to be registered to get validity. Our MC is of the same view.
In the following circumstances whether the registrations is a must to get validity of the agreements.
1. An allotment of stilt parking by way of letter of allotment by the builder after receiving money and the contents state that the letter is part of the original sale agreement?
2. The letter of allotment is dated 27.12.2006, the flat registration is on 28.12.2006 and the affixing a stamp duty of Rs.100.00 for a consideration of Rs.1.00 lac on 29.12.2006 will validate the allotment letter and give ownership to the holder of allotment letter?
3. Any document stamped subsequent to the agreement is valid in law?
Srinivasan
V Srinivasan
31 January 2014 at 17:23
Dear Sir
In our society there are 29 stilt parking. These parking have been allotted by the builder by way of allotment letter after receiving some money. While verifying the allotment letter the MC observed the following type of discrepancies.
1. One of the allotment letter is not signed by the builder?
2. In three allotment letters, it has been mentioned as one parking space without giving any number.?
3. One person is having a receipt only without an allotment letter?
4.In two allotments the letters have been paid stamp duty after the date of allotment letter?
Is MC is right in asking them to get the irregularities rectified?
IF the general body passes a resolution that even if there are discrepancies they may be allowed parking space will it validate the allotment letter.
Srinivasan
Ranjeev Sharma
31 January 2014 at 17:22
My plot was acquired and award was anuonced in 2009. Some land owners got stay on that and court has ordered huda to suitably compensate. But I am not part of that WP. Now is larr 2013 can be applicable in my case as only 4 yrs have passed since award. Otherwise what are the options available to me
V Srinivasan
31 January 2014 at 17:16
Dear Sir,
There is a peculiar situation. Our society has 26 parking as per approved ground floor plan. But the builder has converted into 29 stilt parking. He has allotted the same by way of letter of allotment after receiving money and given numbers of the stilt parking in the allotment letter. But when the MC verified the same it was found that some of the numbers did not tally with the number held in the approved plan. It was informed by the holders that they are parking in the place as identified by the builder for last six years. but there are objections to the same from some members saying that they should park in the number as per plan.
Please clarify which is correct in view of the Supreme Court judgement of 2010 which has held that builder cannot sell stilt/open parking.
Srinivasan
anumoddavid
31 January 2014 at 17:13
sir,
One of student undergoing a free vocational training in our campus met with an accident in the campus and died. What will be the compensation that we should be paying to the students family. He is not married nor working.
V Srinivasan
31 January 2014 at 17:08
Recently in our general body meeting the question of passing resolutions and communication with the Registrar was taken up.
The MC feel that communication with the The Registrar, MCGM and other statutory authorities is part of Secretary daily administrative work as per bye law 65 of the Hsg Society Act. But some members are of the opinion that Registrar, MCGM, are third parties and any communication has to be done with them after approval of general body which is supreme that the bye law and other laws. They also say that if the majority is of the view that some of the conditions of bye law need not be implemented if the General body decide so.
Please clarify
1. Whether general body can by pass the laws in force and pass a resolution since it has majority in contravention of the laws of the land.
2. Whether the MC has to go the General body for each and every communication to the Registrar/MCGM. MC is of the opinion that eEgistrar is monitoring the implementation of bye laws in Hsg Societies. and General body is the creation of bye law of hsg society and the bye laws are supreme.
Please give your opinion on the supremacy of the general body and laws of the land.
Srinivasan
Dharmender
31 January 2014 at 16:59
Need a good and sincere lawyer with ethics in Noida Gautambudh Nagar UP who can fight for me against corrupt court and court staff and get me justice.
V Srinivasan
31 January 2014 at 16:58
Dear Sir,
We have 85 members in our society. there are 28 stilt parking. These parking were allotted by the builder in 2006 .2007 and 2008 to some of the residents who had paid him some money. These allottment letters are not registered even though the contents of the letter says that it forms part of original sale agreement.
The question that in the bye law of the society nothing is mentioned about allotting parking to lessee and MC agrees to it. But stilt park owners say that the lessee is not eligible for parking and pass a resolution in contravention to bye law. Whether the resolution passed by a brute majority is valid in law.
The second question is that as per the Supreme court judgement of 2010 on stilt parking, the builder did not have the right to sell the stilt/open parking. When such is the case, whether the ii nd purchaser of a flat from the resident who hold a allottment letter issued by the builder who do not have a right to sell is eligible for the same.
Srinivasan
© 2026 LAWyersclubindia.com. Let us grow stronger by mutual exchange of knowledge.
Irregularities in allotment letter
In our society there are 29 stilt parking which was allotted by the builder by way of letter of allotment after receiving consideration which contains a statement that the parking slot is allotted as per lay out plan and it forms part of the original sale agreement entered into between the builder and the flat purchaser.
The MC in the society observed following discrepancies in the letter of allotment.
1. One of the allotment is not signed by the builder.
2. In three letters of allotment, it simply states that they have allotted one parking space without giving any number or drawing of plan?
3. In two letters of allotment the number mentioned in the letter of allotment as per lay out plan is different from the one occupied by the resident?
4. The letter of allotment is dated 26.12.2006, the sale agreement is on 28.12.2006 and a stamp duty of Rs.100.00 paid on 29.12.2006. Is It a valid letter of allotment?
5. In one agreement, the purchaser is a second buyer and the letter of allotment is in the name of the first buyer. But the same has been registered by paying stamp duty for the value of Rs.9.00 lacs even though the letter of allotment is for Rs.1.00 lac. The number of given for stilt parking in the sale agreement is the different from the one the purchaser claims. Whether it is a valid claim/
We request you to clarify on the background of the fact that the supreme court held that in Maharashtra that the builder cannot sell stilt or open parking by its confirmation of judgement in August 2010 as most of the members are of the opinion that the judgement pertains only to Nahoolchand case and will not attract to other societies in Mumbai.
Srinivasan