Sanctuary 105 Phase-2

The matter is adjourned and to come up on 30.12.2024. 

Ar. Neeraj Gautam, Associate Architectural Executive and Ms. Asha, Chartered Accountant briefed about the facts of the project.   Sh. Yogesh Kumar Sharma (AGM) and Sh. Narendra Kumar (Manager) are present on behalf of the promoter and state that phase 1 of the project has already been registered by the Authority vide registration no. 89 of 2024 dated 28.08.2024 and now application is for the registration of phase 2 of the project duly approved by DTCP vide memo no. ZP-863-VOL-II/AD(VK)/2024/21154 dated 12.07.2024. The consents of 2/3rd of the allottees along with the issuance of public notice has already been submitted at the time of registration of phase 1 of the project and no change has been made thereafter.   Later on, one of the landowners accompanied by his counsel appeared and submitted his representation requesting to direct the promoter for earmarking the allocation of units as per collaboration agreement before registration. Although, Authority observes that the colony has been granted license by DTCP on the basis of collaboration agreement duly registered and is irrevocable, and the share of individual landowners is to be allocated accordingly. However, to clarify the same, a copy of representation be forwarded through email to the applicant promoter for his comments and clarifying the allocation of units along with other deficiencies before the next date of hearing.   The matter to come up on 08.01.2025 at 03:00 PM. 

Ar. Neeraj Gautam, Associate Architectural Executive and Ms. Asha, Chartered Accountant briefed about the facts of the project. Sh. Rajeev Gupta (Sr. VP) and Sh. Ankit Goenka (GM) are present on behalf of the promoter along with one of the landowners of the project accompanied by his counsel. The counsel of the landowner had submitted a representation in the Authority regarding dispute between the landowner and the applicant promoter regarding delay in completion of project and allocation of units as per collaboration agreement of the project.  Although, Authority observes that the colony has been granted license by DTCP on the basis of collaboration agreement which is duly registered and irrevocable. The AR of the promoter states that phase 1 of the project has already been registered by the Authority vide registration no. 89 of 2024 dated 28.08.2024 and the current application is for the registration of phase 2 of the project duly approved by DTCP vide memo no. ZP-863-VOL-II/AD(VK)/2024/21154 dated 12.07.2024. The consent of 2/3rd of the allottees along with the issuance of public notice has already been submitted at the time of registration of phase 1 of the project and no change has been made thereafter. Further, the case for grant of environmental clearance for revision and expansion is recommended from SEAC to SEIAA in its 309th meeting dated 09.01.2025. The AR of the promoter further states that the collaboration agreement based on which the license has been granted is irrevocable in nature and the both the parties are in the process of resolving the dispute. The AR requests the Authority to grant the registration and assures that they will abide by the order of arbitration regarding allocation of units to the landowner as per above collaboration agreement. The Authority observes that the landowner, namely Sh. Nitin Kataria who has submitted a representation objecting to the registration of the phase 2 of the project and applicant promoter, have already engaged in arbitration proceedings before the arbitrator appointed by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court. The relevant portion of the order dated 03.01.2025 passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi is reproduced as below: “ 3.      The cause of action arises from a legal notice dated 14th November 2024 issued by the respondents terminating the said agreement of facts and circumstances as stated in the said legal notice, essentially that the petitioners were not complying with the obligations in the agreement in facts and circumstances stated in the said notice. 4.      Response to the same was addressed on 26th November 2024, by the petitioner, which was duly received by respondents. Aside from specifically responding to the allegation in the legal notice, it was mentioned that to mitigate the situation and in the interest of all stakeholders, without prejudice to the rights and remedies of the petitioners, the petitioners were ready to have a dialogue on the aspect of allocation of the units and put the entire controversy to rest. 5.      Mr. Jayant Mehta, Senior Counsel appears for petitioner and Mr. Jatan Singh, Senior Counsel appears for respondents. They state on instructions, that they are willing to refer the matter to arbitration before a sole arbitrator. It is agreed that the arbitration be conducted under the aegis of the Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DIAC). 6.      The parties have agreed to appoint HMJ (Retd.) Rajiv Shankar Shakhdher, former Judge of this court as the sole arbitrator in this matter. The arbitration will be conducted in accordance with the rules of DIAC, including the renumeration, which is payable to the arbitrator. 7.      Counsels for the parties state that prior to commencing of arbitration proceedings, they will make attempts to resolve the matter through mediation within a period of two weeks, failing which the process of arbitration shall commence. 8.      Any urgent interim relief, if necessitated, by either party, may be taken up under the provisions of Section 17 of the Act, before the arbitrator. 9.      Mr. Jayant Mehta, Senior Counsel for petitioner states the RERA registration had been obtained on 28th August, 2024, listing the respondents as part of the promoters/ license holders. Mr. Jatan Singh, Senior Counsel for respondents, however, refutes the same based on interpretation of the RERA conditions. 10.  Mr. Jatan Singh, Senior Counsel for respondents, on instructions states that they shall not be taking any precipitative action till either the matter is resolved in mediation or till application filed by petitioner, if any, is disposed of by the arbitrator. 11.  In the meantime, the petitioner shall make a disclosure of all the units that they are disposing of, in terms of an affidavit, which shall be placed before the arbitrator.”   The Authority is of the view that it cannot indefinitely delay the registration of the project simply on account of the dispute inter se the landowner and the applicant promoter who has the requisite approvals from the competent authorities for the registration of the project. In view of the above, the Authority approves the registration of the project subject to the decision regarding dispute between the landowner Sh. Nitin Kataria and the applicant promoter M/s 1000 Trees Housing Pvt. Ltd. Further, the promoter is directed to disclose the details of pending litigation in form REP-I as well as in brochure and advertisement material of the project. The same shall also be reflected in the registration certificate of the project. The promoter shall disclose the final outcome of the arbitration proceedings within a period of 15 days of the decision in this regard. The promoter shall submit the revised EC within 4 months from the date of grant of registration certificate.   The certificate shall be issued after the rectifications in DPI and for REP-I and other deficiencies pointed above.