Statutory/Legal Issues

UDS refers to the portion of land that is assigned to an apartment owner in a multi-unit tower. UDS is calculated based on the total land area of the project and the built-up area of the individual apartment. It is typically proportional to the size of the apartment; larger apartments receive a higher UDS share than smaller ones.

UDS determines the ownership rights over the land in a multi-unit development. It is crucial for resale value, future construction rights, redevelopment possibilities, and compensation in case of any issues with the tower.

No, the UDS is usually registered along with the sale deed of the apartment. It is not a separate entity but part of the ownership package.

If the building is redeveloped, owners are compensated based on their UDS. Developers may offer either a new apartment in the redeveloped building or a monetary compensation proportional to the UDS.

No, UDS cannot be sold or transferred independently. It is inseparably linked to the ownership of the apartment and gets transferred along with it during sale or inheritance.

Property taxes are typically levied based on the built-up area of the apartment and not directly on the UDS. However, the overall value of the property, including UDS, influences property valuations.

Common issues include unclear demarcation of UDS, lack of proper documentation, misrepresentation by builders, and disputes arising during redevelopment or sale.

No, UDS (Undivided Share of land) is registered in the same manner as the flat itself. It cannot be registered in parts unless the promoter or builder has deliberately done so to accommodate potential adjustments or revisions to the FSI (Floor Space Index) for upcoming units within the project.

According to the approved plan, each owner is entitled to the Undivided Share (UDS) based on the Floor Space Index (FSI) approved during property registration. In our case, most towers are approved for a 2.5 FSI. However, the UDS mentioned in our registered documents (for most towers) represents only a portion of the entitled UDS. HoH is now allocating the remaining entitled UDS, which will require a registration process involving stamp duty and taxes. A rough estimate suggests that registering this additional UDS for a 3BHK flat in Brentwood could cost approximately ₹3.5 lakhs. We will need to negotiate with HoH to cover this cost, as it stems from their decision not to register the full UDS initially.

Ideally, the value of a flat should not be affected in the near future if the additional UDS is not registered, as it only represents a virtual share of the land. The resale value of each flat, whether registered for the additional UDS or not, should remain comparable to neighboring flats that have completed the process. The significance of the UDS would only come into play during the redevelopment of the tower or project, or in the event of compensation arising from any issues with the tower.

Currently, Phase-1 towers are approved for a 2.5 FSI, while newer towers have a 3.25 FSI, which results in proportionally less UDS for the newer structures. If, in the future, the promoter (HoH) secures a higher FSI for additional towers, the older towers may lose a portion of their UDS. This is because a revised plan accommodating a greater FSI would reduce the overall UDS allocation, potentially affecting the older towers and leading to a smaller share of land within the community.

(This data requires validation from an expert in real estate law, which we are currently pursuing through the association. We will provide updates once we have their opinion.)

Legally, this cannot be done without the explicit consent of the registered owner. However, the respective tower associations can take on the responsibility after obtaining approval through the tower’s internal process, where each owner agrees to have their tower’s association act as the guardian of their additional UDS. As previously mentioned, this will not significantly affect the market value of any flat, as the UDS is a virtual share that remains the same for all flat owners within a tower, regardless of whether it is registered by the owner, the tower association, or the apex association.

Some towers were registered before the implementation of RERA, while newer ones are registered in compliance with RERA norms. RERA provides clear guidelines for transferring the corpus funds to the associations, including specific instructions on how, when, and in what proportions to distribute these funds to both independent and apex bodies within the society. However, pre-RERA registrations are still under deliberation, with clear guidelines yet to be implemented. This does not mean the promoter can withhold the corpus indefinitely. These funds can be contested and secured.

That said, along with the corpus comes the responsibility of maintaining common areas, which the corpus is intended to support. For those towers that have yet to receive the corpus, a clear plan is necessary to determine the extent of common amenities (such as avenue roads, play areas, STPs, lighting, safety, and security) that the apex association can take responsibility for. This plan must be carefully devised with strong consensus among all involved towers and their residents; without such agreement, the upkeep of these amenities may suffer.

For over a decade, HoH had not adequately addressed residents’ concerns. Several legal cases have been filed by individuals, tower associations, and RWAs (UoTA and CHRWA), with some reaching a verdict, while others remain sub judice.

Recently, a case filed by CHRWA resulted in a favorable ruling, where deviations made by the promoter, HRPL, were uncovered. The court directed HRPL to seek approval from the affected residents for revisions to the original project plan that caused the violations in question. This has prompted HoH to engage with the residents.

Initially, they approached the RWA that had filed the case, but no resolution was reached. They then approached UoTA, which declined to get involved as they were not party to the case but urged HRPL to address longstanding unresolved concerns. Currently, HoH is reaching out to the tower associations in Phase-II to seek their approval.

In addition, HRPL has sent emails directly to individual residents to gain their consent. We advise our residents not to respond directly to these requests from HoH/HRPL. Our association is seeking legal advice on this matter and will provide clear guidance as soon as it becomes available.