‘In­ac­cu­rate re­ports have led to con­fu­sion’

The UP Apart­ment Act has been in oper­a­tion since March 2010 and the Noida Author­ity has just mod­i­fied rules, says of­fi­cer on spe­cial duty

HT Estates - - HTESTATES - Jee­van Prakash Sharma

be­tween March 2010 (when the act was im­ple­mented in UP) and June 2, 2014.

“This is noth­ing but an un­ten­able at­tempt to save its own of­fi­cers and the pro­mot­ers who have vi­o­lated the var­i­ous pro­vi­sions of the UP Apart­ment Act 2010 with im­punity since 2010. The at­tempt is to press a re­set but­ton (im­ple­ment the 2010 Act by cov­er­ing up the past) af­ter of­fi­cials and pro­mot­ers pan­icked fol­low­ing the spate of writs against au­thor­i­ties for vi­o­la­tion of the 2010 Act,” says SK Pal, a Supreme Court lawyer.

Sur­pris­ingly, in sev­eral court cases, the Noida Author­ity has sub­mit­ted that the Apart­ment Act is in oper­a­tion from March 2010 in the city.

“Just be­cause Noida adopted UP Apart­ment Act 2010 in 2014 does not mean that the Act will not ap­ply for the pe­riod be­tween 2010 and June 1, 2014. In other words, any buyer who bought a flat dur­ing this pe­riod the flag­ship Sec­tor 93-A of Noida Re­gion, will leave no stone un­turned to es­ca­late the mat­ter be­fore the higher/high­est ju­di­ciary till our just de­mands are rea­son­ably ful­filled and jus­tice meted out.

From the re­ply ten­dered, I got a dis­tinct per­cep­tion that the ex­act modal­i­ties for im­ple­men­ta­tion of the Ut­tar Pradesh Apart­ment Act of 2010, were still to be frozen, and there­fore, the in­for­ma­tion given by the build­ing depart­ment was not cor­rect.

Fur­ther, when I in­formed the of­fi­cer on spe­cial duty OSD (M) cum com­pe­tent author­ity des­ig­nate that I have with me, on ac­count of my spear­head­ing the con­sumer com­plaint can in­voke Act 2010 for le­gal re­course. This an­nounce­ment by the Noida Author­ity is mis­lead­ing and once again sup­port­ive of builders as it pre­sents a sce­nario in which all vi­o­la­tions from 2010 to 2014 are out of the purview of Act 2010,” says Prakash PVS, the main pe­ti­tioner in the Omaxe Grand­woods case in the Al­la­habad High Court. Prakash, in 2011, had for the first time raised the is­sue of grant of additional FAR to Omaxe by the Noida Author­ity in vi­o­la­tion of UP Apart­ment Act 2010.

“In fact, the Author­ity ac­cepted the in­terim or­der passed by the Hon’ble Court, re­strain­ing the builder from con­struct­ing vil­las as per the amended plan be­cause the re­spon­dents failed to show that writ­ten per­mis­sions were ob­tained from the al­lot­tees of Grand­woods be­fore ap­prov­ing the al­ter­ation of the de­clared plan as re­quired un­der sec­tion 4 ( 4) of the UP Apart­ment 2010 Act,” says Pal. no: CC- 95/ 2009 be­fore t he apex court in the Na­tional Con­sumer Dis­putes Re­dres­sal Com­mis­sion (NCDRC), ex­ten­sive backup ma­te­rial dat­ing back all the way to March/ De­cem­ber 2003 where­from one can prove chrono­log­i­cally that, even in 2003, the sub­stan­tive re­quire­ments of the Ut­tar Pradesh Apart­ment Act 2010 were, in spirit if not in let­ter, very much en­shrined within the body of the var­i­ous le­gal documents ex­changed in such pre-his­toric pe­riod, I was asked to pro­duce/ sub­mit the same for­mally for re­view or fur­ther fol­low up.

While the Noida Author­ity CEO Rama Ra­man was not avail­able for com­ment, the of­fi­cer on spe­cial duty, Manoj Rai, blamed in­ac­cu­rate me­dia re­ports for the con­fu­sion over the date of im­ple­men­ta­tion of UP Apart­ment Act 2010. Ac­cord­ing to Rai, the UP Apart­ment Act was im­ple­mented in Ut­tar Pradesh in 2010 and “it’s ob­vi­ous that all de­vel­op­ment au­thor­i­ties, whether Noida or Ghazi­abad, come un­der its purview since then.”

“It’s in­cor­rect to say that Noida has is­sued a no­ti­fi­ca­tion for the im­ple­men­ta­tion of the UP Apart­ment Act from June 2, 2014. The said act is in oper­a­tion every­where in Ut­tar Pradesh since 2010. We have only mod­i­fied the rules of the UP Apart­ment Act to bring clar­ity in the process of im­ple­men­ta­tion,” says Rai. Ac­cord­ing to the Ut­tar Pradesh Apar t ment ( Pro­mo­tion of Con­struc­tion, Own­er­ship and Main­te­nance Rules, 2011, the com­pe­tent author­ity means the vice-chair­man of the de­vel­op­ment author­ity. How­ever Noida be­ing an in­dus­trial de­vel­op­ment author­ity has a CEO as com­pe­tent author­ity and not the VC. Sim­i­larly, Rules 2011 are about the Mu­nic­i­pal Cor­po­ra­tion, but in Noida, the Noida Author­ity per­forms the func­tions of the mu­nic­i­pal ac­tiv­i­ties. “So we have amended these mi­nor pro­vi­sions of the Rules, 2011 so that it brings more clar­ity to the im­ple­men­ta­tion of the act,” Rai adds.

Asked if people could com­plain to the author­ity about any vi­o­la­tion of build­ing rules be­tween March 2010 to June 2, 2014, Rai an­swered in af­fir­ma­tive and said, “I re­it­er­ate for ev­ery­one t hat noth­ing has changed on June 2, 2014, as the act was in oper­a­tion in the state since 2010. When told to clar­ify why there was no in­for­ma­tion about mod­i­fi­ca­tion of rules on the Author­ity’s web­site, Rai said that it would take some time as the board res­o­lu­tion had come just a few days ago.

How­ever, Rai re­fused to com­ment on the three-year de­lay in the mod­i­fi­ca­tion of the Ut­tar Pradesh Apart­ment (Pro­mo­tion of Con­struc­tion, Own­er­ship and Main­te­nance Rules, 2011).

PIC­TURE FOR REP­RE­SEN­TA­TIONAL PUR­POSE ONLY

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from India

© PressReader. All rights reserved.