Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

8. In the circumstances, we direct the promoters and also request Mr. M.L. Lahoty and two other representatives to be nominated by home buyers to assist and submit the details and all requisite documents to the Chairman, NBCC as also to the Chairman of the Committee. Noida authority and Greater Noida authority shall also furnish to them all the documents which are in their possession. Let promoter, Noida authority, Greater Noida authority and buyers furnish all the documents/pleadings they have submitted to this Court, within three days from today.

38. It was also submitted on behalf of Noida Authority that after 2005, a total of 114 plots had been allotted to various group housing societies. 81 have been handed over the possession on payment of 10% of the total premium. 29 projects, out of these 81, have been completed. Out of other 33 allotted earlier, 11 had been completed, and 7 have obtained part- completion certificates. Noida Authority, being a responsible public organisation, has been diligent in pursuing Amrapali Group, it has not taken the drastic recourse of terminating the lease deed as that would entail demolition of the existing structures as per the provisions of the lease deed. In terms of the lease, home buyers have no title or legal rights to possession of the flats they are occupying. As the projects have been completed to some extent, it would have been unfair to leave the home buyers in the lurch. The occupancy certificate is issued in accordance with the provisions of the New Okhla Industrial Development Area Building Regulations, 2010 (for short, ‘the Regulations of 2010’). Clause 20.0 of the Building Regulations requires the allottee to submit a notice of completion of the building, inter alia, with a structural safety certificate, NOCs from the Fire Department, Explosives department and Environment department. No building erected, re-erected, can be occupied in whole or in part unless occupancy certificate is issued by the CEO of the Authority as per clause 20.1.1 of the Regulations. The lessee/promoter is entitled to allot the dwelling unit on a sub-lease basis. However, he has to make the payment of premium of the plot to Noida authority when permission to transfer built-up flats or part with possession of the whole or any part of the building which has been constructed is granted. The physical possession of flats can be given to home buyers only after execution of sub-lease deed and sale deed has also to be registered before actual physical possession of the flat is handed over as required under the provisions of Registration Act, 1908. The declaration required to be made under section 12 of the U.P. Apartments Act, 2010 is also to be filed.

40. It is submitted that it is open to the authority to cancel or terminate the lease. In the case of misrepresentation, suppression or violation of the conditions of lease and in the case of default and at the time of cancellation, an amount equivalent to 25% of the total premium of the plot shall have to be forfeited and possession of plot shall have to be resumed by Noida Authority with structure thereon. In the instant case, no dues certificate had not been issued by the Noida authority nor any sub-lease deed has been executed. The possession by various home buyers in respect of constructed flats is contrary to the provisions of the lease deed. The builder could not have handed over the possession. Any occupation of flats by the home buyers without compliance of mandatory provision of occupancy certificate and without payment of statutory dues, both to Noida Authority and to the Collector of Stamps and without execution of tripartite sub-lease deed may not be termed as legal and as such which could have resulted in their eventual eviction.

44. It is further submitted on behalf of Greater Noida Authority that FAR admissible is 02.75 only and not 3.50. The differential FAR of 0.75 is not purchasable. The calculations made by Amrapali based on FAR of 3.50 is itself wrong. FAR has not yet been purchased by Amrapali group by depositing the charges and submission of consent of two-thirds of the apartment owners. Under section 4(2)(1)(D) of RERA, 70% of the amount received from home buyers is to be put in a separate account to be maintained in a scheduled bank and is to be used towards construction and land cost. The land dues payable to Greater Noida authority constitute an encumbrance as provided in section 4(1)(b) of the U.P. Apartments Act, 2010. As per section 11(4)(c) of RERA, it is the duty of the promoters to certify that all dues and charges have been paid. Thus, it follows that money received from the flat buyers is to be spent on construction and payment of land dues. Therefore, payment of land dues cannot be denied to it. Land dues are in the nature of public money. Amrapali group is bound to pay it. The amount is payable in instalments as such same is interest bearing for availing the facility of payment in instalments as such the land cost payable increases. In case of default, penal interest follows. There was no order passed by the Allahabad High Court for staying construction on the leased plots. Amrapali Group was in possession of the allotted land and was proceeding with the construction. For 4 years, it has prayed for zero periods of interest to which the group is not entitled. It would lead to unjust enrichment by Amrapali as they have realised dues from home buyers and have not paid to the Authority. The order passed by the NGT with respect to Okhla Bird Sanctuary case was not applicable to the land in question. The dues payable to the authority are recoverable as the arrears of land revenue. The authority has the first charge. The permission to the mortgage was conditional one, it has not been complied with, in particular, conditions B, C and D. The mortgage had to be renewed every year and is subject to the payment of land premium, etc. The Greater Noida authority has written numerous letters to Amrapali group of companies to make the payment of its dues. In the case of Unitech, yet another Group, the Authority has cancelled the allotment which was questioned in this Court. As the cancellation of the allotment in case of Amrapali could have led to greater complications as construction had commenced with third-party interest created. It would have opened floodgates to litigation. As such cancellation of lease deeds was not resorted to.