The Noida and Greater Noida authorities on Monday strongly opposed in the Supreme Court the court-appointed receiver's suggestion to sell unused floor area ratio (FAR) to raise the fund to complete the unfinished Amrapali housing projects.
Senior advocate Ravindra Kumar, representing the Noida and Greater Noida authorities, vociferously argued that information should be shared regarding the number of homebuyers in each project of Amrapali, as per the date of Amrapali judgment delivered in July 2019.
Kumar contended before a bench headed by justice U.U. Lalit that the court-receiver proposal has to be examined in light of provision of the lease deed, the building regulations, FAR utilised/sanctioned and actual construction at site, to find out whether any vacant land or FAR or both is available.
The flat buyers, who were part of the court proceeding, also opposed the receiver's suggestion.
Kumar argued that the receiver should inform the top court and the authorities about the plan to clear Noida and Greater Noida dues. He also pointed at the non-availability of the officer of the planning department, since he is infected with Covid-19. After hearing the arguments, the top court scheduled the matter for further hearing on August 18.
In July, the court receiver had told the apex court that there are many instances where a portion or part of land is lying unused and without any construction.
"In such cases, the available capacity of such portion of open land can be utilised in open market to generate sufficient resources for flat buyers' benefit. In his submission, the element of unused and unutilised FAR may as well be worth Rs 700 crore and if permission is granted by this court, the interested buyers may come forward for purchasing that component which is presently lying unutilised. This component in reality belongs to the home buyers and if sold, will help in carrying out construction of unfinished towers/flats," said the top court's order dated July 25.
The receiver had submitted that the fact that the authorities are requesting for separation of such component is indicative that it is quite possible and permissible.
Kumar had then submitted that hiving off the plot or division of the plot must be in accordance with the existing policies.
Senior advocate Siddhartha Dave, appearing for NBCC, had supported the contention raised by the court receiver. Dave submitted that a note shall be prepared and placed before the court so that concrete examples are furnished.
The top court, in its July 25 order, had said, "At this stage, we may request the learned court receiver to come out with at least 5 to 7 such concrete instances where unused and unutilised FAR could be purchased by outsiders and thus sizeable contribution could be made to the fund available for completing the project. Let a Note in that behalf be given by the learned court receiver and NBCC at least three days in advance before the next date of hearing. List the matter on 16.08.2022."
( 513 Words)