Now Singanallur after Ukkadam
Girija, who broke her leg when the balcony collapsed.Owners of flats in the Singanallur housing unit say they are forced to risk their lives by living in dilapidated structures. The residents are willing to spend on maintenance of the houses provided they get the sale deed. But, the Tamil Nadu Housing Board is asking them to pay a huge sum in addition to the remittances already made. The million-dollar question is whether the houses will last till the board hammers out a solution.The board had not maintained these “waiting-to-collapse” houses since these had been sold to the allottees. But, the buyers say they cannot spend on maintenance as they have not got the sale deed despite having paid their dues in “full and final settlement of the purchase agreement”. The houses have only been allotted to the buyers. But, property tax, water charges, electricity consumption charges and other payments are being made only in the name of the Executive Engineer of the board. In such a situation, the owners are in no position to spend on maintenance. One of the residents says that the sale deed can be pledged for loans to carry out repairs to the houses.
Now, even this is not possible. The owners contend that what they have paid for the houses over the last 20 years has exceeded even their tentative cost quoted by the board. But, there is still no sign of getting the sale deed. According to the agreement, the cost of a Low Income Group flat of 226 sq ft was Rs. 27,000. The residents claim they had already paid more than Rs. 45,000, including the margin amount and the monthly instalments that include interest. But, the housing board is asking them to pay more.
The demand is over Rs.1 lakh. It includes the difference in cost of land and the interest and the penal interest on it. The owners are ready to pay the difference in land cost, but not the interest and penal interest. In a memorandum to a high-level committee constituted by the State Government to go into this issue, the flat owners have blamed the board for the delay in the finalisation of the cost and intimating the difference in the land rate and contend that they cannot be penalised for it.
