Whether Registration Of Development Agreement Is Compulsory

Whether Registration Of Development Agreement Is Compulsory

It is not mandatory, but it is nevertheless advisable to register it. NOC alone is not sufficient to protect the legal rights of the purchaser. NOC will be difficult to prove in court, but a registered agreement can be proven. The Real Estate Act (Regulation – Development) 2016 (law) was notified in full on May 1, 2017. Section 3 of the Act requires the registration of a real estate project by the developer when the developer intends to promote, market, reserve or sell a property in the aforementioned project. Registration is also required for ongoing projects for which the developer has not received a graduation certificate. Therefore, the law applies not only to future projects, but also to ongoing projects for which construction began before May 1, 2017. For some ongoing projects, an ATS would have clearly been implemented to cover the rights, obligations and obligations of the parties, and the purchasers would have made partial payments in exchange for a block contribution. The amount of payment depends on the time frame chosen by the allottee, i.e. the construction link or the fixed time frame. In this context, Section 13 of the Act now provides for mandatory registration of the ATS.

Description of the property document: the building permit procedure involves the granting of a building permit on the basis of specific rules and rules. Why it is necessary: To determine whether the property is allowed or not Mandatory: Yes Required in the original: No necessary for: Buying real estate With the general purpose of the agreement, a justification of the benefits of the agreement for the health, safety and well-being of the community should be taken into consideration. The section 49 regime provides for a derogation from the above rule, providing that an unregistered document, which relates to the property and which must otherwise be registered either by the registration law or by the TPA, can be obtained as proof of a contract in an appeal for a specified benefit or as evidence of an incidental transaction. The Supreme Court in KB Saha-Sons (P) Ltd/Development Consultant Ltd [(2008) 8 CSC 564] found that a mandatory document, if not registered, can only be considered in a court action for a given benefit as evidence of a contract performed between two parties and that this unregord document cannot be considered as proof of the content of the contract. Therefore, if a document is inadmissible as proof of non-registration, none of its provisions can be admitted as evidence. Since then, there is no need to register a division between existing owners who have already acquired property rights.