The Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority (GNIDA) has asked realty major Supertech to seal 1,009 flats and villas at its sprawling Czar complex in Sector Omicron-1, Greater Noida, for large-scale violation of the sanctioned plan.
Nearly half of these 1,009 units, which include 105 villas, have been sold. GNIDA claims the company had permission for just 844 housing units at Czar, but built 15 residential towers with a total of 1,853 units in this 20-acre township. Supertech, however, told TOI it had not violated any rule.
Two years ago, Supertech had faced a major crisis when the Allahabad high court asked it to demolish two residential towers, Apex and Ceyane, at its prestigious Emerald Court project in Noida's Sector 93A. Supertech had taken permission to build two 24-storey towers, but later raised the height to 40 storeys. The order was later stayed by the Supreme Court, which is now hearing the case, but it has been a huge blow to those who bought properties there, many of whom have taken a refund from Supertech.
In the case of Czar, while no one has as yet moved into any of the 1,009 flats hit by the GNIDA order, some 200 families have already started living in other units at the complex. Residents of these units first noticed the reported violations and complained to GNIDA.
Following the complaints, GNIDA served Supertech a notice on April 11, giving the developer 30 days to seal the properties or face penal action. The flats affected are spread across several towers, including 4, 5, 6 and Nicolas. Flats at Czar are now selling for between Rs 2,525 and Rs 3,890 per sq ft. Supertech denied any violation in its 20-acre township Czar, saying it had purchased additional floor area ratio and submitted revised plans for sanction.
R K Arora, managing director of Supertech, said, "We constructed the additional units after purchasing additional floor area ratio (FAR) from GNIDA in December 2014. The revised building plan to accommodate the additional units has also been submitted to the Greater Noida Industrial Authority (GNIDA). These extra units are within the permissible limit and are covered under the UP government's policy for purchasing FAR."
He added, "We are ready to pay the additional cost for the units. We have submitted revised plans to GNIDA for sanction."
GNIDA said sanctions could not be sought in retrospect. "Construction cannot be carried out first and sanctions applied for later," P C Gupta, additional CEO of GNIDA, said. "Land for Czar was allotted to the developer on September 15, 2006 and the lease deed was executed on January 10, 2007. The layout plan for Phase 1of the project was sanctioned on March 30, 2007. Then, we cleared two revised plans in October 2010 and March 2013 for 844 residential units," he added.
Gupta said GNIDA began a scrutiny of Czar after receiving complaints from residents on layout plan violations. "We checked and discovered that Supertech had built a total of 1,853 residential units. We issued a notice to the company immediately to seal Tower 4 in Block C. In Tower Nicolas, permission was granted for 52 units but the company has built 92 units, which is in violation of the building plan," Gupta said. "Units in Towers 5 and 6 and rowhouses are not sanctioned either. A temple has also been built, which we have asked the developer to raze. This is a violation of the Uttar Pradesh Apartment Act," he added.
Times View
It is shocking that people who may have sunk their life's savings into buying a house should find their investment suddenly at risk because the building is apparently in violation of various rules. There is no way a structure of this size could have come up without the authorities noticing. So why was it allowed to come up and why were houses allowed to be sold in the first place?
Didn't the banks that cleared the home loans do due diligence to check that all approvals were in place and the rules were being followed? If none of this happened, the builder, the authority and the banks all must share the blame. Why should the only blameless party in the entire episode - the poor homeowner - be left to pay the price?
SOURCE: ETRealty.com
No comments:
Post a Comment