Approved Site and Layout Plan - RPS PALMS

[yash.monga]

Dear All,

Today I sent a mail to RPS and requested them to share the copy of approved site and layout plan of RPS PAMLS. The reply from RPS is appended below :

"Dear Sir
Warm Greetings from RPS Group.
We are in receipt of your email dated 24/05/2011.in this regard we would like to inform you that approved plans and other approvals are for official records, we can not provide you the copies of the same for your records.You can verify the same at our corporate office with prior appointment with our customer care executives."

I have replied back to them appropriately but would like to know if any member has a copy of approved plan. If yes, please share with me.

Regards,

Yash

[sendtomanish]

As per DTCP public notice in TOI,it is mandatory by builder to provide.So we can show them and disagree on
"we can not provide you the copies of the same for your records"

[webmaster]

Vineet has obtained all the approved master layout for RPS Savana through RTI. I would suggest taking the RTI way to get the master layout of RPS Palms.

Please refer to this topic on the public notice by DTCP.

public-awareness-notice-by-tcp-haryana-t558.html

[yash.monga]

Thanks Manish & Jayanta.

Yes, I will first try to get it from RPS by showing them DTCP Public notice otherwise take RTI route.

Vineet - Could you please share the RTI form and process to get the approved layouts from DTCP.

Regards,

Yash

[vineet]

Hi Yash,

Sent to your ID from vineetmis@gmail.com.

Regards,

Vineet

[hurrisome]

hi all
thanks for sharing valuable information!
i too booked flat in RPS Palms,,,can u please send me the RTI form and DTCP notice so that i can also follow up with them,,

regards
pankaj

[yash.monga]

Hi Pankaj,

I have shared the public notice with RPS but they have not reacted on it till now. May be discussing internally

I am attaching public notice and sample of RTI letter ( shared by Vineet ) for use of other members to get approved plans. Send postal order for Rs 50 in the name of DTP cum SPIO. Send this through speed post or registered post.


Regards,
Yash

[govindsingh]

What is the exact name in which postal order should be made. I am a BPTP customer and want to get the exact date of approval of my project so that I can ascertain the penalty implications on the builder.

Thanks

[anujft]

Hi,

Have you been able to get any detail on RPS Palms approved site and layout plan from RPS or RTI.

Regards,

[sadhus]

I have two flats at RPS savana and bought 4 years back.RPS has delayed our possession and its now 1.5 years late from promised time .I would urge everybody to assemble so that we can go and raise our voice at RPS site/Jasola office.They have cheated us and there in no hope that they will give us possession soon.

Lets us go to media and have one press conference as soon as possible.We need to gear up and assemble as a unit so that we can take money back with hefty penalty as per market rate escalation + interest.

We have to align all investors and end users to assemble in coming week and do direct meeting with RPS MD and board.

I am attaching information about action taken against builder DLF for delaying possession.We need to appoint similar lawyers and fight our case.

Waiting for your comments

After DLF, who’s next? CCI targets Delhi builders first

By: R Jagannathan (Aug 24, 2011)

http://www.firstpost.com/business/after ... 942.html/2
On 12 August, the Competition Commission of India (CCI) dropped a bombshell that shattered the illusion that all was well with listed realty stocks. It fined market leader DLF Rs 630 crore for essentially duping home buyers using its monopoly power. Among other things, the CCI accused DLF of beguiling and entrapping home buyers “through false solicitations and promises.”
However, it is no one’s case that DLF is the only offender. The CCI is now spreading its tentacles further and has focused its attention of several Delhi builders who may have done a DLF or worse.
Shocked with what it found with DLF, the CCI has begun a reality check on other builders in and around the Delhi National Capital Region (NCR) where the courts recently had to force builders to hand over land taken through dubious means.
The office of the CCI Director-General has begun to collect information on major realty companies who have allegedly used “unfair” means to lure customers to buy apartments and then enter into one-sided contracts that favoured the builder.
When Firstpost sought confirmations on the builders who were under scrutiny, CCI officials declined to comment. But informed sources said an investigative team was busy collecting samples of builder-buyer agreements of many big builders in the NCR region. Among them: Unitech and Emaar-MGF in Gurgaon, Jaypee, Amrapali, Supertech and Lotus in Noida.
Strengthened by a crack team that has been deputed from the Law Ministry and market watchdog Sebi, the CCI has formed a task-force to check out major realtors in the Delhi NCR before focusing on the other metros of Mumbai, Kolkata, Chennai, Bangalore and Hyderabad.
In Delhi, two builders who have reportedly been taken for scrutiny are Supertech and Amrapali, both of whom issued newspaper advertisements even before they got the land on which they were to build their apartments.
In the case of Supertech, the advertisement inviting buyers was published on 3 March 2010, while in the case of Amrapali the ad came on 19 March. While Supertech got its land allotment on 19 March – 16 days after the ad was published – Amrapali got its land the day the ad was carried by newspapers in Delhi. Since ads have to be released to the print media at least a day in advance, it is clear that Amrapali had jumped the gun at least by one day.
Both the builders are top names in Noida and Amrapali has used cricketers MS Dhoni and RP Singh as its brand ambassadors.






The Competition Commission of India has accused DLF of beguiling and entrapping home buyers “through false solicitations and promises.” Reuters
The CCI investigative team has apparently collected copies of newspapers advertisements which were issued even before the Greater Noida Administration allotted Supertech and Amrapali their land.
Firstpost was first to report on both the cases – Amrapali and Supertech – in its story on the Noida Extension scam.
But the CCI’s entry into the picture has changed the nature of the game for real estate players. As already pointed out in the DLF verdict, the Commission is looking into major violations by builders in doing contracts with home buyers.
In its verdict on the DLF’s group Belaire housing project in Gurgaon, Haryana, the CCI had hinted that the rest of the realty sector must be following the same arbitrary rules that DLF did by taking advantage of the buyer’s weak bargaining power. This is why the CCI has taken suo motu note of “unfair competitive practices” in the realty sector and looks set to give its Director General a go-ahead to conduct further investigations.
In DLF’s case, the Belaire housing complex was supposed to be a conglomerate of five 19-storied buildings with 368 apartments. It was to be constructed in three years. DLF took crores of rupees from the allottees, even before the first brick was laid. Later, DLF unilaterally changed its plans to construct a 29-floor building.
“In the view of the Commission, the conduct of DLF in abusing its dominant position requires to be taken very seriously and thus, the Commission is required to adopt a deterrent approach so that recurrence of such conduct is stopped.’’
Pointing out the “draconian and one-sided clauses” of DLF, the Commission’s report said: “There are clauses that give DLF Ltd sole discretion in respect of change of zoning plans, usage patterns, carpet area, alteration of structure, etc. In case of change in location of the apartment, PLC (preferential location charge) determined at the discretion of the builder and, if a refund is due, no interest is paid. No rights have been given to the buyers for raising any objections.
“Further, even if the buyer has paid the full amount, the builder can raise subordinate mortgage on the property for finances raised for its own purpose and the consumers are subjected to this mortgage. Despite knowing that necessary approvals were pending at the time of collection of deposits, DLF Ltd inserted clauses that made exit next to impossible for the buyers.”
The other violations and abuse of consumer rights, according to the CCI, are:
• They (builders) issue advertisements for launching projects without the land being actually purchased, registered in their names and possession taken and without taking prior approval of competent authorities.
• Builders don’t specify the total area of the plot/flat/house, indicating clearly the carpet area and utility area.
• They don’t specify the date of delivery and consequential remedies available to the consumer in case of delay.
• They don’t deposit the amounts collected from allottees against a particular project in a designated escrow account that will be utilised only for the construction of the concerned building.
• They don’t inform buyers about the progress of works and status of account of each allottee in a transparent manner.
• They don’t inform buyers of built-in hidden costs other than the initial set price.
• They don’t post all the relevant information on the internet and make them available in the public domain. There is no transparent and participatory mechanism put in place to deal with price escalations, if any.
• In cases of inordinate delays, there is no provision for the payment of pre-determined penalties to buyers.
• There is no fair, participatory and transparent mechanism to tackle any substantive and major changes in the project mid-way, before taking approval of the authorities for the revised scheme and commencing construction thereon