Noida buy­ers need more re­as­sur­ance

Res­o­lu­tion of NGT is­sue brings much-needed re­lief, but buy­ers want builders to en­sure timely pos­ses­sion

HT Estates - - FRONT PAGE -

Though about one lakh buy­ers are more than re­lieved by the green sig­nal to restart projects af f ected by the Na­tional Green Tri­bunal (NGT) or­der re­lated to the Okhla Bird Sanc­tu­ary, many of them have other con­cerns. They fear that their de­vel­op­ers who cited the NGT prob­lem as the rea­son why they had not re­ceived oc­cu­pa­tion cer­tifi­cates ( OC) will not pay them penalty for de­lay in the pro­ject.

Call­ing the latest de­vel­op­ment “en­cour­ag­ing and a welcome step,” Markan­day Mishra, a buyer, says he and oth­ers in their pro­ject were given in­terim letters of pos­ses­sion by the builder even be­fore the is­sue was of­fi­cially re­solved. “The fact that these letters have been sent out and we have ac­cepted them ab­solves the devel­oper of any re­spon­si­bil­ity to pay penalty from the date on which the letters have been is­sued,” he says.

Mishra ac­cepted the let­ter be­cause of fi­nan­cial com­pul­sions. He was un­able to main­tain rented apart­ments in Delhi, where he lived, and Mum­bai, where he had been trans­ferred. “Since I was pay­ing EMIs for the Noida apart­ment and had to man­age the rent for my homes in Delhi and Mum­bai, I had no choice but to sign on the doc­u­ment due to fi­nan­cial hard- ships. How­ever, my ac­cep­tance meant I had to grap­ple with un­re­solved is­sues in the new hous­ing pro­ject such as ab­sence of se­cu­rity and in­ad­e­quate fa­cil­i­ties – just one lift is work­ing in my build­ing. One has to travel a few kilo­me­tres for even the ba­sic ne­ces­si­ties. The en­tire pro­ject is still at a work-in-progress stage with a few tow­ers still in­com­plete. One wor­ries about con­struc­tion ma­te­rial fall­ing on peo­ple’s heads from the 18th or 19th floors. There are many risks but I did not have any choice,” he says.

Mishra also al­leges that the the su­per area of his apart­ment has been in­creased from 1,340 sq ft to 1,528 sq ft. This does not com­ply with the UP Apart­ment Act 2010. “This is ad­di­tional cost for me. I will also have to pay more for reg­is­tra­tion of my apart­ment and for main­te­nance charges, which is a re­cur­ring cost,” he adds.

Club fa­cil­i­ties, for which many buy­ers have al­ready paid mem­ber­ship fees, are also not likely to be ready on time. “We have also filed a suit against the devel­oper in the Na­tional Com­mis­sion for de­lay and de­fi­ciency of ser­vices. They have cited is­sues such as lack of labour etc for de­lay in de­liv­ery,” says Mishra.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from India

© PressReader. All rights reserved.