The state govt’s bid to remove ambiguities in the application of Odisha Apartment (Ownership and Management) Act, 2023, hit a roadblock on Wednesday with the Orissa high court issuing a stay order on the notification issued by the housing and urban development department on February 1.
The two-judge bench of Acting Chief Justice Arindam Sinha and Justice M S Sahoo issued the interim stay on a petition seeking intervention against the notification. The notification allowed non-application of OAOM Act in the case of apartments completed prior to Feb 25, 2017, before the commencement of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act in the state.
The bench scheduled the matter for hearing on Feb 19 while seeking a response to the petition from the state govt and inspector general of registration.
Housing and urban development minister Krushna Chandra Mahapatra said the govt will study the HC order and take appropriate steps after that. “We will examine the circumstances under which the HC has stayed the notification and will take steps as per legal advice in the matter,” he said.
The Feb 1 notification said registration authorities shall not deny the registration of any apartment citing provisions of the OAOM Act if the apartment was completed before the commencement of RERA in the state – prior to Feb 25, 2017.
It had been issued in response to widespread difficulties faced by apartment owners in registering sale deeds.
Officials noted that misconceptions about the OAOM Act’s retrospective effect have led to inconsistent interpretation by registration officers across the state.
Bimalendu Pradhan, a resident of Bhubaneswar, had filed the petition contending that in the OAOM Act, there is a clear bar on registration of an apartment if it does not have an occupancy certificate and if the association of allottees of the apartment has not been formed and registered.
Advocate Mohit Agarwal made submissions on behalf of the petitioner.
In the petition, Pradhan alleged that the notification “is unreasoned and arbitrary without disclosing what problems were faced by allottees”.
The petition alleged, “The impugned notification has been issued to favour certain builders who have been duping innocent buyers by selling them incomplete flats which have not received occupancy certificates and apartments where no association of allottees has been formed as has been annexed in the writ petition.”
