New Delhi, Aug 8 : The Noida and Greater Noida authorities on Monday strongly opposed in the Supreme Court the court-appointed receiver’s proposal to sell floor area ratio (FAR) to fund the completion of the not-completed Amrapali housing developments. Senior Advocate Ravindra Kumar, who represents the Noida and Greater Noida authorities, vociferously claimed that information should be made public about the number of homeowners in each of the projects of Amrapali according to the time of Amrapali decision handed down in July, 2019.
Kumar spoke before the justice U.U.Lalit that the court-receiver plan must be analyzed in the context of the provisions of the lease deed and the building regulations, FAR sanctioned or used and construction on site, to determine if vacant land, or FAR, or both are available.
The flat owners, who were a part of the court proceeding also opposed the receiver’s proposal.
Kumar said that the receiver needs to inform the top court as well as the authorities of the plan to pay Noida and Greater Noida dues.He also raised the issue of the inaccessibility of the planner of the department of planning, because he is sick with Covid-19.
After hearing his arguments, the supreme court scheduled the case for hearing again on 18 August.
In July the court receiver informed the apex court that there are numerous instances where some or all of land is unoccupied and is not being constructed.
“In these situations the capacity of this portion of open land could be used in open markets to generate enough resources to benefit flat buyers.In his argument that the component of FAR that is not used and not utilized could be worth around 700 crore.
If approval is granted by the court, interested buyers can apply to purchase the component that is currently unutilised.This part in fact belongs to home buyers and , if sold, it will aid in the construction of unfinished towers or flats,” said the top court’s decision dated July 25.
The receiver had stated that that authorities are asking for the separation of this component indicates that it is feasible and legal.
Kumar had then stated that the cutting off of the plot or dividing of the plot should be in conformity with the current policies.
Senior attorney Siddhartha Dave, representing NBCC has backed the arguments made by the receiver of the court.Dave stated that a document must be prepared and put before the court in order that specific examples can be presented.
The supreme court in the July 25th order stated “At this point we could ask the court’s learned receiver to come up with at five to seven concrete instances wherein FAR that are not being used or not being used could be bought by outsiders and a substantial contribution could be provided to the fund to complete the project.Let a note in this regard be made by the court receiver who is a learned person and NBCC at minimum three days in advance of the date of hearing.The matter will be listed as of 16.08.2022.”
ss/arm
.
