Supreme Court holds buyers equally responsible as builders for Maradu flats

Supreme Court holds buyers equally responsible as builders for Maradu flats

The case is scheduled for a hearing in mid-November

The Supreme Court has come heavily on homebuyers who purchased flats in Enrakulam's Maradu municipality in Kerala. Holding them as much accountable as builders and other authorities, the court questioned, "What is the responsibility of the homebuyers? Can they buy anywhere just because the builder is building?"

In May 2019, the Court had ordered the removal of the building, as it was constructed on the area's notified Coastal Regulatory Zone (CRZ). The building was demolished for violation of environmental norms in January 2020.

Stating that buyers should put more thought into where they were spending their hard-earned money, the bench of Justice BR Gavai and Justice BV Nagarathna held, "We must balance everyone's interest; everyone must face the music. The purchasers were not rural or illiterate people."

The remarks were a result of the homebuyers' submissions about the difficulties they were facing due to the Court's order that led to the demolition of their flats.

Later, a review petition was filed against the judgment by a builder of one of the apartment buildings. He argued that the verdict was based on the incorrect understanding that the construction was carried out in CRZ III. However, the flats were constructed in compliance with the CRZ norms.

In September 2019, the Apex Court had ordered the Kerala government to pay Rs.25 lakh each as interim compensation to the affected flat owners. The amount was to be recovered from the builders and the remainder to be awarded to the flat owners on evaluation by the Justice TB Radhakrishnan Committee.

Eventually, the Court ordered the builders to deposit Rs.20 crores with the committee.

The committee's report tabled before the Court said that officials of the panchayat had issued the permits to the builders, but later failed to issue any memo to stop construction work. It found that the officials were aware of the CRZ classification, and that the area of the now-demolished buildings fell in a no-development zone.

The committee maintained that the liability for breaking the rules would not just be on the builder, but also on the state government and the concerned municipality and panchayat.

Meanwhile, appearing on behalf of the homebuyers, senior advocate V Giri submitted that new construction could be done in the area as per the 2019 CRZ norms. He added that the litigation so far had been one-sided.

Senior Advocate, Meenakshi Arora, who appeared for another batch of petitioners, said that the homebuyers had taken loans to pay for the purchase, and were still repaying the loan amount.