The Noida authority,the affected home buyers in Emerald Court group-housing project,and the developer are planning to move the Supreme Court against the recent judgement of the Allahabad high court,which ruled that two highrise towers in the project be demolished.
The turn of events in Supertech Emerald Court group-housing project in Noida’s Sector 93A,especially after the Noida Extension case,has left home buyers dazed and uncertainty is back in the real estate market of the NCR.
In both cases,buyers invested their money in projects which were approved by the civic authorities concerned.
In the case of Noida Extension,buyers bought in projects where land was allotted by the Greater Noida authority to the developers to build housing projects.
But later,the Allahabad high court ruled that the processes followed by the authority to acquire land from the farmers were not as per the law and directed the authority to return land back to the farmers.
By then the authority had not only auctioned the land but also had approved a number of housing projects on the same land.
The developers,too,had not only launched projects but had sold more than 50,000 apartments and housing units to end users by that time.The authority also had sold a large number of housing projects directly to end users.
Thus the courts decision created an uncertainty in the minds of the developers and the buyers.A number of buyers in Noida Extension wanted their money back,as no one was sure whether the authority would get any relief from the apex court never the less,the projects were not scrapped.
The authority,on the direction of the court,negotiated with the farmers and the issue was settled after the authority agreed to pay an additional amount to farmers,which they recovered from the developers.But,the whole process delayed the projects by at least three years.
In the case of Emerald Court,people bought in the project only after ascertaining that the developer had received the requisite approvals from the Noida
EMERALD COURT CASE
authority to build the two towers,which are now in dispute.In a recent judgment the Allahabad high court said the Noida authority acted in collusion with the developer,Supertech Group,to give its approvals.
Reacting to this,a few buyers in one of the two disputed towers wanted to know how the common people were to know whether the authority concerned acted in collusion with the developer in granting various approvals to construct the towers.The buyers said they had bought these apartments in 2009 and 2010.The high court directed the authority to return the money of customers,along with 14% rate of interest. Dharmendra, a buyer,said that even 14% return,he would not be able to buy a flat in the same area,as the price appreciation here in these four-five years had put the existing flats out of his reach.
Similarly,a number of other buyers say that they want flats.In fact,a number of buyers in the disputed new towers Apex and Ceyanewant to be a party when the Special Leave Petition is filed in the Supreme Court.
The upshot of all this is that,ultimately,it is the buyers who are the sufferers.They are unanimous in the opinion that the civic authority,the developer,and the courts must find a solution to protect their interests,as they are willy nilly suffering for no fault of theirs.
The Confederation Real Estate Developers Associations of India (Credai) in a statement said,We are working in cohesion with the concerned authorities and governments in seeking uniformity,consistency,communication and coherence of laws concerning the sector and we expect the scenario only getting better with time. Terming the incident at Emerald Court unfortunate,the officiating president of Credai-NCR,Rohit Raj Modi,said that while the association respects the judgment of the Allahabad high court,it had nevertheless caused pain to the developers,the authority,and the buyers.
The affected parties Supertech,buyers,and the Noida authority,and the developers community,are planning to move the Supreme Court for the review of this judgment.Credai suggested that everyone concerned must wait for the final judgment before drawing conclusions over this incident.
Modi said that the Uttar Pradesh Apartment (Promotion of Construction,Ownership and Maintenance) Act was notified in 2010,while the rules were framed in 2011.The high court in its judgment ruled that the developer had violated the rules under this apartment act.
The judgment seems to have ignored the fact that there were a number of projects launched before that dateline and phase wise construction of those projects was in progress.On the one hand,the rules were not properly communicated,while on the other,there was overlapping of rules.All of this created confusion among the developers,Credai said.While Credai welcomed the act,it called upon the government to provide clarification on the overlapping rules in the act to avoid such incidents in the future.
A buyers association,which claimed a membership of 200 buyers in the disputed structure,in a statement said that the Allahabad high courts ruling to demolish Apex and Ceyane towers on Noida-Greater Noida Expressway had shattered their dreams.We were extremely shocked when we heard about this judgment as the Honorable High Court has given a verdict against the owners of units in Apex and Ceyane towers (total 857 units) without giving us an opportunity of being heard,which goes against the principle of natural justice.We were eagerly waiting for the completion of both the towers and ultimately hoping for the possession of our apartments by the end of 2015, the statement said.
The associations statement further said: The Honorable High Court has asked the developer to compensate us paying 14 % interest while exiting from the project,which is not at all acceptable to any of the Apex or Ceyane unit buyers as we are looking forward to have our apartments.We are also against the provision of any alternative unit offered by the developer as we invested our hard-earned money at this excellent location along Noida-Greater Noida Expressway and the beautiful layout of the project.
BUYERS IN ONE OF THE TWO DISPUTED TOWERS WANTED TO KNOW HOW COMMON PEOPLE WERE TO KNOW WHETHER THE AUTHORITY CONCERNED ACTED IN COLLUSION WITH THE DEVELOPER IN GRANTING VARIOUS APPROVALS TO CONSTRUCT THE TOWERS