HARASSMENT FROM UNREGISTERED APARTMENT ASSOCIATION

HOW TO COMPLAINT ON UNREGISTERED APARTMENT ASSOCIATION IN HYDERABAD

I have parking issue with unregistered apartment association in hyderbad, we have illegal construction
in basement and we have common area in the ground floor its occupied by few flat owners for their car
parking with out paying parking fee. I requested for parking allotment and maintain guidelines which
they are refusing and collecting full maintenance. Can you please guide me how to complaint on
unregistered apartment association.

Don’t pay maintenance. File police case on un-authorised association. Get president and office bearers
arrested

Any un-registered association has no right to collect any maintenance, they cannot have bank account to
deposit and cannot maintain any accounts. The collection of maintenance is an offence of extortion
under Section 483 against which you can file a private complaint in Court of Magistrate and restrain
them from collecting maintenance. You can also remove encroachments from common area and obtain
a parking space for you.

I had been harassed by unregistered apartment society secretary and members and forced to paying
more amount and threatened that they would disconnect common essential facilities.

If the association is un registered it is totally illegal. The association cannot collect a rupee from you,
they have no authority to disconnect any facility. You can file a criminal case against them for extortion
of money.

What is land encroachment?

Land encroachment is a process when someone violates an owner's

property rights. A person enters a building or a property unlawfully or
extends some part of the building into someone else's structure
intentionally or unintentionally. Land encroachment is also sometimes
called property encroachment, but there is a very thin line between the
two. Let's understand with an example how these two are different.
Suppose Ms Shweta has bought land in Noida and left it unattended,
meaning she did not do any construction on it. After a while, when Shweta
visits the property, she sees a boundary wall built around her land. This is
an example of land encroachment. 

Here is an example of property encroachment. Mr Ajay is renovating his

house and decides to increase the garden into Mr Bakshi's parking space.
This is a property encroachment. Mr Bakshi might feel that it is a
temporary adjustment, but it might pose a problem when he decides to
sell the property. This is because Mr Ajay will not let go of the encroached
property quickly. So, one should know how to deal with such a problem.

Difference between land encroachment and

trespassing

At times people confuse land encroachment with trespassing. However,

these two are different terms. Encroachment is an act where a person
uses another person's property illegally. Whereas trespassing is entering
someone's property without or against a property owner's consent. There
are three kinds of trespassing:-

 Of person- When a person is restricted to do an activity which he

previously did
 Of chattel- an owner is disturbed using their movable property
 Of property or land- a person enters a property or land of another person
with the aim of possession.

Land Encroachment Act India

Section 441 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 is applied to land and
property encroachment. According to section 441, encroachment occurs
when somebody tries to enter illegally into someone else's property. This
is done to commit an offence, threaten a person for possession of the
property and stay there. On land encroachment, the penalty is provided
under section 447 of IPC. If a person is found guilty, they will pay a Rs 550
fine and imprisonment for up to three months. In the following manner,
law treats the encroachment:-

 Section 441 is also applicable on trespassing on private land, and it is an

offence under section 442. 
 The judiciary can either stop encroaching or restrain them. 
 The judiciary can also ask to pay compensation for encroachment as per
the law. Compensation is calculated based on present land value, and loss
caused. 
 To claim the damages, move the court as per Order 39 (rules 1, 2 and 3)

Penalties under the land encroachment act

Under section 447 of IPC, an encroacher will have to pay Rs 550 as a fine
or/and face imprisonment for up to 3 months. The penalty will be decided
according to the offence.

4. The plaintiff further submits that during the pendency of the proceedings defendants have
sold the suit schedule car parking area to Modi Anwarulla & Anwar Pasha under sale deed
on 03/05/2007, who in turn sold the same in favor of defendant no. 3 on 17/01/2013. That
subsequently on 10/12/2016 the plaintiff questioned the defendant No.3
the encroachment of the parking area which is on the eastern side of flat bearing No.001,
ground floor in the apartment Green View Homes Bangalore, Judgment OS.No .15427/2006
which has been demarcated as Parking Area as sit out by barricading the parking area and
also use only to park their vehicles and have also provided with amenities such as ceiling fan
plastic chairs etc., further they have alsoencroached upon the common passage on the
southern side of the schedule property and removed the electrical panels and meters and
shifted them to the eastern side of the schedule property and locked the gate and are using the
same exclusively as their office, which again is not permitted by schedule 'E' clause 9 of the
sale deeds executed by the vendor only to cause hardship to him and also have locked the
gate and are not allowing him to use the schedule property. He objected and inspite of his
protests the defendants have taken law into their hand and have locked the gate
and encroached upon the common passage.and parking area which they are not entitled to
do so. They abused him in filthy and vulgar language and tried to assault him and threatened
him with dire consequences. The defendant No.3 lodged false complaint against him who
questioned them about the unlawful encroachment of the Parking Judgment
OS.No.15427/2006 Area and common passagefor his personnel use which is specifically not
allowed as per the Schedule "E" clause 7 and 9 of the sale deeds executed by the Vendor of
the Flats as being expressly provided in the sale deed of all the purchasers of the flats of the
apartment Green View Homes, K. Kamaraj Road, Bangalore. That the jurisdictional police
have advised both the parties to approach the court as the matter is pending before the
court. That the defendants tried to interfere on 10/12/2016 with his peaceful possession of the
schedule property by encroaching upon the parking area and common passage which the
defendants are not entitled to do so. The defendants have denied the right over the
same. That the defendants are liable to demolish the illegal structures put up in the Parking
area and the common passage by way of mandatory injunction and the encroached area in
the common passage is more fully described in the Schedule 'B' mentioned below;

Although the defendants have no right to use his car parking only to cause hardship to him,
have locked the gate and are not allowing him to use the schedule property. The plaintiff
tried to object said act of the defendants inspite of protest the defendants have taken law into
their hands and have locked the gate which they are not entitled to do so, leaving with no
other option except to file the above suit. That the plaintiff approached the jurisdictional
police station for necessary protection against the high handedness of the defendants, the
jurisdictional police station have not taken any action against the defendants on the Judgment
OS.No.15427/2006 ground that it is a civil dispute. That the defendants on 26/08/2006 tried
to interfere with peaceful possession of the schedule property once again by the plaintiff,
knowing the fact that the plaintiff has already moved the Court for injunction, and on
27/08/2006 started closing their car parking area in the schedule premises by converting the
same into room, which the defendants are not entitled to do so. That though the sale deed in
his favor clearly states that the car parking at the ground floor (schedule premises) is allotted
to his share in view of the fact that the defendants have denied the right over the same, the
plaintiff is entitled for declaration that he is the owner of the car parking area and
consequently for possession of the said area from the one who has encroached the same
during the pendency of the suit more so on 27/08/2006. That the defendants during the
pendency of the proceedings have sold the suit schedule car parking area to the Modi
Anwarulla & Anwar Pasha under sale deed dated 03/05/2007, who in turn sold the same in
favor of defendant No.3 on 17/ 01/2013. That subsequently on 10/12/2016 the Judgment
OS.No.15427/2006 plaintiff questioned the defendant No.3 the encroachment of the parking
area which is on the Eastern side of flat bearing No.001, ground floor in the apartment area
Green View Homes Bangalore, which has been demarcated as "Parking Area" as sit out by
barricading the parking area and also use only to park their vehicles and have also provided
with amenities such as ceiling fan plastic chairs etc., further they have also encroached upon
the common passage on the southern side of the schedule property and removed the
electrical panels and meters and shifted them to the eastern side of the schedule property and
locked the gate and are using the same exclusively as their office which again is not
permitted by schedule E clause 9 of the sale deeds executed by the vendor, only to cause
hardship to him and also have locked the gate and are not allowing him to use the schedule
property. He objected and inspite of his protests the defendants have taken law into their
hands and have locked the gate and encroached upon the common passage and parking area
which they are not entitled to do so. They abused him in filthy and vulgar language Judgment
OS.No.15427/2006 and tried to assault him and threatened him with dire consequences. The
defendant No.3 had lodged a false complaint against the plaintiff, when he questioned them
about the unlawful encroachment of the "Parking Area" and common passage .for
personnel use which is specifically not allowed as per the Schedule "E" clause 7 and 9 of the
sale deeds executed by the Vendor of the Flats as being expressly provided in the sale deed
of all the purchasers of the flats of the apartment Green View Homes, K. Kamaraj Road,
Bangalore. That the jurisdictional police have advised both the parties to approach the court
as the matter is pending before the court. That the defendants tried to interfere on 10/12/2016
with his possession of the schedule property by encroaching upon the parking area
and common passage, which the defendants are not entitled to do so. As the defendants have
denied the right over the same which the plaintiff is entitled to. That the defendants are liable
to demolish the illegal structures put up in the Parking area and the common passage by way
of Mandatory Injunction and the encroached area in the Judgment
OS.No.15427/2006 common passage is more fully described in the schedule 'B '. The
defendants have taken frivolous contentions in their written statement. The PW.1 prays to
decree the suit as prayed in the plaint. In support of oral evidence PW.1 marked the
documents ExP1 to ExP34.

16. The contention of the plaintiff that he is the absolute owner of the Flat No.201 on the 2nd
Floor of the building known Judgment OS.No.15427/2006 as Green View Homes
constructed on the property bearing Nos.144, 145 & 146 of K. Kamaraj Road, Civil Station,
Bangalore along with the said apartment he also owned about car parking space on the
ground floor of the apartment which is plain schedule property. Even since the date of
purchase of apartment he is using the car parking area provided to him and parking his car
bearing No.CKP 8982 in the schedule property. The defendants have no right, title and
interest in the schedule property, but trying to obstruct him from parking his vehicle. The
defendant No.1 claimed to have owned Flat bearing No.001 ground floor in the apartment
Green View Homes, K. Kamaraj Road, Civil Station, Bengaluru which has a parking area on
the other side of his car parking area. The schedule property is enclosed by a gate. The
defendants have no right to use his car parking are, but only to cause hardship to him they
have locked the gate and have not allowed him to use the schedule property. That during the
pendency of the suit the defendants have encroached his car parking area and the defendant
No.3 on the Judgment OS.No.15427/2006 Eastern side of Plat No.101 in the ground floor put
the barricade and using the said area to park their vehicles, the plaintiff contention that the
defendants are trying to interfere in his possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule
property by encroaching upon the parking area and common passage . The plaintiff
contention that the defendants are liable to demolish the illegal construction put up in
the common area and common passagewhich is mentioned as 'B' schedule in the plaint. In
support of oral evidence the PW.1 marked the documents at ExP1 to P34. The ExP1 to
ExP11 are marked as photograph as they belong to the suit schedule property. The ExP12 is
the CD of the said photographs. The ExP13 is complaint dated 27/08/2006 given by the
plaintiff to the Bharathi Nagar Police Station, Bengaluru against the defendant No.1. The
ExP14 is complaint given by Krishnakumar @ Ravi S/o Gopala Krishnan against R.
Srinivasan and his son Kumar (present plaintiff) on 13/01/2017. The ExP15 is information
taken by Srinivasan under RTI Act relating to NCR No.18/2017 from Bharathi Nagar Police
Station.
20. The contention of plaintiff that defendants are obstructing him from parking his vehicle
in the ground floor. Further during the pendency of the suit the defendants have sold suit
schedule car parking area to Modi Anwarulla & Anwar Pasha under sale deed dated
03/05/2007, and in turn sold the same to defendant No.3 on 17/01/2013. Subsequently on
10/12/2016 the plaintiff questioned the defendant No.3 the encroachment of parking area
which is on the Eastern side of Flat No.001 ground floor in the Apartment Green View
Homes of Bengaluru which has been demarcated as parking area as sit out by barricading the
parking area and also used only to park their vehicles and also provided with amenities such
as ceiling fan, plastic chairs, etc. Judgment OS.No.15427/2006 Further they
have encroached the open common passage.on the Southern side of the property removed
the electric meter and shifted them to the Eastern side of the schedule property and locked
the gate and are using the same as exclusive as their office which is not permitted by the
schedule 'E' clause-9 of the sale deeds executed by vendor only hardship is caused to the
plaintiff not to him and also have locked the gate and not allowing him to use the schedule
property. 

*************************

7. The defendant No.2 to 4 have filed written statement denying the

averments made in the plaint and further denied ownership and
measurements of the property and the existence of the common passage,
its width and its ownership. It is submitted that the 1st defendant has
obtained sanctioned plan to construct a building in her site vide
L.P.No.94/05-06 dated 19-12-05. Since the 1st defendant has constructed
her building without leaving any set back notice is served on her. These
defendants further submit that actually there remains
no common passage between the Plaintiff's and 1st defendant's site. The
Plaintiff has constructed a staircase measuring to 2'6" at
the common passage thereby he himself encroached on the
alleged common passage measuring 2'6". On the other hand Plaintiff is
claiming that defendant is encroaching the common passage. The 1st
defendant has also encroached an extent of 2'6" wide space touching
plaintiff's staircase. There is no cause of action for the suit. The plaintiff
has not made out any prima facie case. Hence defendants 2 to 4 pray to
dismiss the suit of the plaintiff.
8. The plaintiff has filed rejoinder by way of affidavit to the counter claim
made by defendant No.1. The plaintiff has denied the averments made in
the counter claim that common passage belongs to both plaintiff and
defendant and it is the plaintiff who
has encroached the common passage measuring 1½ x 20 feet situated
between the house of plaintiff and defendant and the plaintiff illegally
constructed the staircase on common passage. He has also denied that he
has encroached the common passage measuring 5 x 20 feet. and deprived
the rights of the defendant No.1. He further submits that as per the partition
deed it is clear that the measurement of passages are 4 x 20 feet and not
2½ ft x 20 Ft. as contended by the defendant. He denied that he has
constructed stair case, room with attached toilet and bathroom. He further
stated that though there is an order of status quo, but the defendant No.1
illegally attempting to put up construction. The plaintiff further denied that
in order to deprive the licence granted during the year 1970 itself, he has
deprived the defendant No.1 the right of usage of sanitary pipe. The
plaintiff further denied that defendant is not putting up any construction
neither in the common passage nor in the ground floor of the schedule
property and the defendant No.1 has taken license to construct the first
floor portion of the property. The plaintiff denied that he
has encroached and constructed the stair case in common house of 2 ½ x
20 feet and hence the relief of mandatory injunction claimed in counter
claim is false. The plaintiff further stated that as per partition deed dated
7.10.1970 the common passage is clearly shown as 5 ft x 20 ft and
another passage is shown as 4 ft. Since the 1st defendant is putting up
illegal construction over the passage, in order to cover the said act, has
sought for amendment. The defendant No.1 is not entitle for any relief as
sought for in the counter claim and the same is liable to be rejected and the
plaintiff prays to dismiss canter claim of defendant No.1.

18. The DW.3 has filed his affidavit evidence in lieu of examination in
chief and he has deposed that he is neighbour of plaintiff and defendant
No.1. He is a Civil Contractor who has undertaken building work of the
house of defendant No.1. The plaintiff was running a factory Neon Bulb
manufacturing unit in the residential premises illegally and in fact it was
opposed by defendant No.1 and other local people and thereafter in order
to expand the factory the plaintiff hatched plan to grab the property of
defendant No.1. Defendant No.1 is the absolute owner in possession and
enjoyment of the property measuring 20 x 16 feet the share allotted to Mr.
Parthasarathy and during the life time of Mr. Parthasarathy he had put up a
construction in the property measuring 22½ x 16 feet in the year 1975.
Thereafter the defendant No.1 is in possession and enjoyment of the same.
There are two common passages adjoining the suit schedule property.
One common passage running form North to South measuring 4 x 20 feet
and another common passage running East to West 2½ x 20 feet. The
property of the defendant No.1 is running North to South 16 Feet and East
to West 22½ Feet. The defendant No.1 never put up construction on the
ground floor of her property and never encroached upon
neither common passage nor the suit schedule property and in fact the
plaintiff has encroached upon common passage measuring 2½ x 20 feet
and put up stair case and toilet on the same and the same is liable to be
demolished. The ground floor portion of the defendant No.1 property is
more than 20 years old construction. He was given contract to put up two
additional floors only and in fact he has never touched the ground floor
portion of the house. The plaintiff has encroached common passage and
therefore counter claim of the defendant No.1 should be allowed and suit
of the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed.

25. Therefore the Court Commissioner report discloses that the plaintiff
by encroaching common passage constructed the stair case. He also
mentioned that the defendant Gowramma's property measures 16 x 20 feet,
but the house constructed area is 16.50 x 22.50 feet. This discloses
defendant No.1 has also encroached in the common passage. PW1 in his
cross examination deposed that "It is true that the defendant No.1 has not
obstructed me in respect of the suit schedule property. It is true that in the
conservancy on the southern side of my property drainage pipes are laid. I
have purchased the suit schedule property about 20 years back. At that
time one Parthasarathy was residing in the house now occupied by
defendant No.1." The PW.1 further deposed in his cross examination "It is
true that as per ExP1 there are two common passages. It is not true to
suggest that I have closed one of the common passage by putting up
construction of staircase. The witness states that he has put up the
construction of staircase during the lifetime of Parthasarathi and he was
also using the staircase. The said staircase leads to both houses of myself
and Parthasarathi" He further deposed and admits in his cross examination
that "I admit that the stair case is constructed in the common passage".
"Now ExP18 photo is shown to me. The common passage seen this
photograph runs north to south. The said common passage was there
during the lifetime of Parthasarathi and now also it is existing." The PW.1
on the one stretch admits that he has constructed stair case in
the common passage and on the other stretch he deposed that still there is
existence of common passage. Hence on corroboration of admission of
PW.1 with the Court Commissioner report it is crystal clear that the
plaintiff has constructed stair case and toilet in the 2½ x 20 feet out of 5 x
20 feet common passage between houses of himself and defendant No.1.

*******

8. Three instances of infraction of the order passed by this Court are alleged;

(a) The defendant has carried out illegal and unauthorised construction in the
common area and additional tenements/units on every floor of the suit premises for the
defendant's personal and monetary use;
(b) The defendant has encroached over and carried out illegal and unauthorised construction
upon the common terrace area, open to the sky, and fixed two additional doors on
the terrace keeping them locked and thereby deprived the plaintiff from enjoyment of the
common terrace area;