The Supreme Court was hearing appeals from Supertech Ltd and other petitions filed by home buyers.
New Delhi:
Noida on Wednesday slammed the Supreme Court for failing to provide approved plans to home buyers of Supertech’s Emerald Court project, saying “you (the authority) are falling prey to corruption with your eyes and nose”.
A bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and MR Shah, which reserved judgment on Supertech’s appeal against the Allahabad High Court order to demolish the two 40-storey towers, observed that when the home buyers asked for the plan, the authority Wrote to the developer whether to share it and at its behest refused to give them the plan.
“It is a shocking exercise of power. You (Noida) are not only in league but in alliance with Supertech. When home buyers asked for an approved plan, you wrote to Supertech asking whether you should give documents or not And on refusal you refused to give them the plan.”
“You gave it to them only after the High Court had clearly directed you to give it. You are doing corruption with eyes, nose and his face,” the bench said.
The top court, during the day-long hearing, also told Noida that being a regulatory urban planning authority, it should adopt a neutral stand.
“Being an officer, you should take a neutral stand instead of defending the acts of Supertech. You cannot take a private stand for any promoter,” the bench told counsel Ravindra Kumar, appearing for Noida.
Ravindra Kumar criticized the court when it tried to justify the construction of two 40-storey towers in the project, saying it was done as per the plan approved by the authority.
The bench remarked how Noida in its “eternal wisdom” allowed the 40-storey tower to come under green cover.
Ravindra Kumar said it was not green land as alleged by the home buyers as the approved plan of 2006 showed a concrete structure where these towers came.
Dealing with the NBCC inspection report, Ravindra Kumar said it was prepared after discussions with home buyers and Supertech and Noida were not involved in the meeting.
“They (NBCC) have said that the twin towers violated the distance norms between two buildings but I was not present in the meetings. We had objected to the findings of NBCC,” he said.
Senior advocate Vikas Singh, appearing for Supertech Ltd, defended the construction of the twin towers and said that there was no illegality in it.
He said Supertech lost the case before the high court in two cases – one by distance norms and the other for not taking consent of home buyers before construction of towers.
Vikas Singh said that the Emerald Court Owner Resident Welfare Association, which has filed a case before the High Court challenging the construction of the twin towers, did not even exist at the time when the plan was approved and construction started.
“Our plan was approved in 2009 and construction started after that. The RWA came into existence in 2013, then how can I get the consent required by law before construction starts,” he said. Ask each flat buyer and consent.
Tackling the minimum distance criterion between two buildings, Vikas Singh said that there is a distance of 9.88 meters between 40-storey tower 17 and 11-storey tower one, which is a distance of about 32 feet, which allows a fire brigade to move forward. enough for.
He said, “The National Building Code prescribes a distance of 9 meters between two buildings. This is being followed by the Delhi Development Authority. In many states the minimum distance is 9 meters to 16 meters. We have followed the minimum distance required. “
Vikas Singh said that out of 633 people who booked flats initially, 133 have moved to other projects, 248 have taken refunds and 252 home buyers have still made their bookings with the company.
“We have followed the minimum distance norms, followed fire safety norms and all other norms. There was no illegality promoted by the home buyers. There was no obstruction in the green area view from Tower-1 as they did not have any Balcony or window on that side. They had only one window in the toilet in front of the area where these towers are built,” said Vikas Singh.
Senior advocate Jayant Bhushan, appearing for the home buyers, opposed Vikas Singh’s submissions that building bye-laws were not followed in the construction of both the towers. The bench asked all the parties to submit their submissions in writing by August 9 and reserved the verdict.
On Tuesday, the apex court had told Vikas Singh that what his client has done is “clearly wrong” as the towers were constructed by encroaching upon the green common area of the housing society.
Supertech had told the apex court that its Emerald Court owner Resident Welfare Association was terrorizing the builder by making unreasonable claims.
The top court was hearing the appeals of Supertech Ltd and other petitions filed by home buyers against or against the Allahabad High Court’s 2014 order directing the demolition of the twin towers for violating norms.
The two towers of Supertech’s Emerald Court project, Apex and Cayenne, together have 915 apartments and 21 shops. Of these, 633 flats were booked initially.
On 11 April 2014, the Allahabad High Court ordered the demolition of two buildings and refund of money to apartment buyers within four months.
.