Follow @Myfaridabad |
Site Announcements |
---|
Invitation to RPS SAVANA Allottees to join Case in NCDRC against RPS Infrastructures Ltd Have you submitted a rating and reviewed your project? Rate & Review your project now! Submit your project and review. Read Reviews! Share your feedback! ** Enhanced EDC Stayed by High Court ** Forum email notifications...Please read ! Carpool from Greater Faridabad to Noida Carpool from Greater Faridabad to GGN |
BlessU wrote:Hi
Greetings
Actually the stay is on the "entire EDC" (EDC+EEDC if being demanded in any case), as per the order and quoted HUDA notification in the stay order.
Cheers
brandoo wrote:BlessU wrote:Hi
Greetings
Actually the stay is on the "entire EDC" (EDC+EEDC if being demanded in any case), as per the order and quoted HUDA notification in the stay order.
Cheers
Stay is on 2011 policy which is called enhanced EDC and not on the EDC per say, Dheeraj correct me if I am wrong in my interpretation.
dheerajjain wrote:Members who have NOT yet paid enhanced EDC can use attached template with supporting documents prepared by GFWA legal team to be sent to your concerned builder. Please note that next hearing in Kurukshetra Case is on 10-04-13 and it is a possibility that stay may be vacated. If you get any communication whether positive or negative from your respective builder, please share it as it can be very beneficial for GFWA High Court case for quashing of enhanced EDC.
GFWA requires your support to move forward. Please become a GFWA member today or renew your GFWA membership. Renewals are necessary for 2013. Please follow links under Site Announcements Box above.
Groveranil wrote:Hi
Can anyone explain what should be done by the person from whom the builder is demanding this increased EDC now before giving the pocession of flat in Sector 86.
HC stays EDC enhanced retrospectively
Saurabh Malik
Tribune News Service
Chandigarh, March 29
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has stayed the operation of a memorandum whereby external development charges (EDC) were enhanced retrospectively by the State of Haryana and its functionaries.
The order came on a petition filed by Balwan Singh and other petitioners through counsel Parveen K. Kataria. Seeking the quashing of the impugned memo dated July 14, 2011, the petitioners had asserted that the respondents were already demanding enhancing EDC from developers, licensees and colonisers in the state.
The petitioners had added that enhanced EDC could not be charged as it was without “any authority of law and has not been calculated or charged as per provisions and guidelines issued under the Haryana Development & Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975”.
The counsel had also demanded that directions should be issued to the respondents to take appropriate measures to come out with guidelines for protecting the interests of the petitioners and other similarly situated persons.
This, he argued, was essential as the "companies" were taking benefit of incomplete and vague guidelines to “play big fraud” in calculating and charging EDC. He added that the state should also be directed to ensure there were “proper rules and guidelines so that there was transparent system of charging of EDC, interest etc from the petitioners and the public."
The counsel further added that the state and other respondents should also be restrained from collecting enhanced EDC retrospectively “and from taking coercive steps against the petitioners for recovery of enhanced EDC during the pendency of the present petition.”
Taking up the petition, the Division Bench of Justice Satish Kumar Mittal and Justice Amol Rattan Singh issued notice of motion to the State of Haryana and other respondents for April 10. Before parting with the order, the Bench directed: "In the meanwhile, till the next date of hearing, the operation of the impugned memo dated July 14, 2011, is stayed.”
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest