Case replete with instances of collusion by NOIDA in violations of norms by Supertech SC
New Delhi Aug 31 PTI The Supreme Court Tuesday pointed out multiple incidents of collusion of NOIDA officials with realty major Supertech Ltd and violations of norms by the builder in construction of twin 40-storey towers in its Emerald Court projectA bench of Justices D Y Chandrachud and MR Shah directed that the twin towers be demolished within three months and refund be made to all the existing home buyers with interest of 12 per centThe top court noted that the two towers Apex T-16 and Ceyane T-17 of Emerald Court Project of Supertech situated in sector 93A of NOIDA together have 915 apartments and 21 shops Of these 633 flats were booked initiallyOf the 633 people booking the flats initially 133 have moved out to other projects 248 have taken refunds and 252 home buyers still have bookings with the company in the projectThe record of this case is replete with instances which highlight the collusion between the officers of NOIDA with the appellant and its management The case has revealed a nefarious complicity of the planning authority in the violation by the developer of the provisions of law the bench saidThe complicity of NOIDA has emerged in several instances including in the sanctioning of the second revised plan on November 26 2009 in clear breach of the Noida Building Regulations 2006 it saidThe refusal by NOIDA to disclose the building plans to the first respondent Residents Welfare Association in spite of a clear stipulation consistently in all the sanctioned plans that the plan would have to be displayed at the construction site of the appellant the bench saidIt said one of such instance of collusion includes NOIDAs referral of RWAs request to access the sanctioned plans to the builder to seek its consent and upon the refusal of the latter a continuous failure to disclose them to the residentsEven when the Chief Fire Officer CFO addressed a communication to NOIDA in regard to the violation of the minimum distance requirements in Emerald Court it evinced no response and no investigation from them the bench saidIt said that in pursuance of the second revised plan of September 26 2009 Supertech Ltd appeared to have built a foundation to support two buildings of forty and thirty-nine floors while the sanction for the extension from twenty-four to forty or thirty-nine floors came about only on March 2 2012 through the third revised planThe construction for T-16 and T-17 commenced in July 2009 by the appellant five months before the sanction was received for the second revised plan on November 26 2009 in spite of which NOIDA chose to take no action the bench saidIt said the Allahabad High Court has dealt with the collusion between the officials of NOIDA and the Supertech Ltd This is writ large from the facts as they have emerged before this Court as well The High Court has in these circumstances correctly come to the conclusion that there was collusion between the developer and the planning authorityThe top court said that NOIDA made no effort to ensure compliance of the UP Apartments Act 2010 as a result of which the rights of the flat purchasers have been brazenly violatedThis cannot point to any conclusion other than the collusion between NOIDA and the appellant to avoid complying with the provisions of the applicable statutes and regulations for monetary gain at the cost of the rights of the flat purchasers it saidThe bench in its 140-page verdict said that once this Court has determined that the sanctioned plan for Apex and Ceyane T-16 and T-17 breached the Noida Building Regulations NBR 2006 2010 and National Building Code 2005 and other provisions it becomes its duty to take stock of the violations committed by the Supertech Ltd in collusion with NOIDA The appellant Supertech Ltd raised false pleas and attempted to mislead this Court while the officials of NOIDA have not acted bona fide in the discharge of their duties The appellant has stooped to the point of producing a fabricated sanctioned plan the bench said It said Therefore we confirm the directions of the High Court including the order of demolition and for sanctioning prosecution under Section 49 of the UPUD Act as incorporated by Section 12 of the UPIAD Act 1976 against the officials of the appellant and the officers of NOIDA for violations of the UPIAD Act 1976 and UP Apartments Act 2010 PTI MNL SA
New Delhi Aug 31 PTI The Supreme Court Tuesday pointed out multiple incidents of collusion of NOIDA officials with realty major Supertech Ltd and violations of norms by the builder in construction of twin 40-storey towers in its Emerald Court projectA bench of Justices D Y Chandrachud and MR Shah directed that the twin towers be demolished within three months and refund be made to all the existing home buyers with interest of 12 per centThe top court noted that the two towers Apex T-16 and Ceyane T-17 of Emerald Court Project of Supertech situated in sector 93A of NOIDA together have 915 apartments and 21 shops Of these 633 flats were booked initiallyOf the 633 people booking the flats initially 133 have moved out to other projects 248 have taken refunds and 252 home buyers still have bookings with the company in the projectThe record of this case is replete with instances which highlight the collusion between the officers of NOIDA with the appellant and its management The case has revealed a nefarious complicity of the planning authority in the violation by the developer of the provisions of law the bench saidThe complicity of NOIDA has emerged in several instances including in the sanctioning of the second revised plan on November 26 2009 in clear breach of the Noida Building Regulations 2006 it saidThe refusal by NOIDA to disclose the building plans to the first respondent Residents Welfare Association in spite of a clear stipulation consistently in all the sanctioned plans that the plan would have to be displayed at the construction site of the appellant the bench saidIt said one of such instance of collusion includes NOIDAs referral of RWAs request to access the sanctioned plans to the builder to seek its consent and upon the refusal of the latter a continuous failure to disclose them to the residentsEven when the Chief Fire Officer CFO addressed a communication to NOIDA in regard to the violation of the minimum distance requirements in Emerald Court it evinced no response and no investigation from them the bench saidIt said that in pursuance of the second revised plan of September 26 2009 Supertech Ltd appeared to have built a foundation to support two buildings of forty and thirty-nine floors while the sanction for the extension from twenty-four to forty or thirty-nine floors came about only on March 2 2012 through the third revised planThe construction for T-16 and T-17 commenced in July 2009 by the appellant five months before the sanction was received for the second revised plan on November 26 2009 in spite of which NOIDA chose to take no action the bench saidIt said the Allahabad High Court has dealt with the collusion between the officials of NOIDA and the Supertech Ltd This is writ large from the facts as they have emerged before this Court as well The High Court has in these circumstances correctly come to the conclusion that there was collusion between the developer and the planning authorityThe top court said that NOIDA made no effort to ensure compliance of the UP Apartments Act 2010 as a result of which the rights of the flat purchasers have been brazenly violatedThis cannot point to any conclusion other than the collusion between NOIDA and the appellant to avoid complying with the provisions of the applicable statutes and regulations for monetary gain at the cost of the rights of the flat purchasers it saidThe bench in its 140-page verdict said that once this Court has determined that the sanctioned plan for Apex and Ceyane T-16 and T-17 breached the Noida Building Regulations NBR 2006 2010 and National Building Code 2005 and other provisions it becomes its duty to take stock of the violations committed by the Supertech Ltd in collusion with NOIDA The appellant Supertech Ltd raised false pleas and attempted to mislead this Court while the officials of NOIDA have not acted bona fide in the discharge of their duties The appellant has stooped to the point of producing a fabricated sanctioned plan the bench said It said Therefore we confirm the directions of the High Court including the order of demolition and for sanctioning prosecution under Section 49 of the UPUD Act as incorporated by Section 12 of the UPIAD Act 1976 against the officials of the appellant and the officers of NOIDA for violations of the UPIAD Act 1976 and UP Apartments Act 2010 PTI MNL SA
