Greater Noida Authority — Complaint against supertech builder eco village 2

Address:

201308

To, dated: 10.04.2016
Shri rama raman, ceo
Greater noida industrial development authority,
169, chitvan estate, sector gamma,
Greater noida – 201308 (U.P.).

Sub: complaint against supertech builder “eco village 2 project plot no. Gh01, sector16b, greater noida west” for layout plan changes without my/our consent; seeking cancellation of the increase in the floor area ratio (“far”); withdrawal o[censored]ndue/illegal charges and penalties

Respected sir,

1. Background
1.1 the undersigned is a buyer of an apartment in the eco village 2 project plot no. Gh01, sector16b, greater noida west (“project”) constructed by m/s supertech ltd. (“developer”), of which building plans were originally sanctioned by greater noida industrial development authority (“gnida”).
1.2 it has come to my knowledge that pursuant to the original sanction of the building plans and layouts on the basis of which i had entered into an agreement with the developer to purchase apartments in the project, the developer without my consent as required under the uttar pradesh apartment (Promotion of construction, ownership and maintenance) act, 2010 (“apartment act”) has made certain changes in the plans and layouts of the project.
1.3 increased far has enabled the developer to encroach upon common undivided open areas and thereby reducing the open area that was disclosed at the time of booking.
1.4 the builder has imposed certain charges that were earlier not part of the builder buyer agreement (Bba). The law provides an inalienable right to a buyer to know what is being purchased, the numerical value of the area that he is being charged for and the liability for other charges.
1.5 the activity of the builder so far has been suspicious for its lack of transparency and communication, which in turn has led to various incidents of irregularities and violations.

2. Submissions / objections
2.1 increase in far area: any increase in the far of the project or any change in the original building plan and layout is likely to affect the interest and rights of the buyer and accordingly their consent are required for any such major change. I strongly object to the increase in far of the project on the following grounds, which are without prejudice and in addition to each other:
I. No consent of the buyer: prior permission of the buyer was not obtained for the purchase of additional far in accordance with the apartment act and hence, the same is in violation of the apartment act.
Ii. Contempt of allahabad hc: any increase in far without the consent of the buyer is a contempt of the directions issued by the hon’ble high court in the apartment act judgment. The allahabad high court has also issued a notice in this regard to the greater noida authority chairman on december 16, 2015 stating that no builder should be allowed to change the floor area ratio of their apartments without prior consent of the home buyers.
Iii. Adverse effect on population and encroachment: the increase in the far is likely to have adverse effects on the population density of the plot thereby straining the common amenities in the plot.
Iv. Allahabad court judgement: the aforesaid points were reiterated in an allahabad hc judgment with regard to implementation and enforcement o[censored].P. Apartment (Promotion of construction, ownership & maintenance) act, 2010 by hon’ble mr. Justice sunil ambwani and hon’ble mr. Justice bharat bhushan in civil misc. Writ petition no.33826 of 2012; m/s designarch infrastructure pvt. Ltd. & anr. V. Vice chairman, ghaziabad development authority & ors[7]. The judgment amongst other points specifically dealt with this particular problem and came to this particular conclusion:
“the far or any additional far is a property, appended to rights in the property on which the building is constructed, and is thus a property in which the apartment owners have interest by virtue of the provisions of the up apartment act, 2010. The purchase of additional far is not permissible to be appropriate by the promoter without any common benefits to the apartment owners. The consent of the apartment owners obtained by resolution at the meeting of the apartment owners by majority will be necessary for purchasing additional far. Its utilization will also be subject to the consent of the apartment owners.”

V. Violation o[censored]p apartment act, 2010:
• proviso to section 4 prohibits any alteration without previous consent and section 5 states that the percentage o[censored]ndivided interest of each apartment owner in the common areas and facilities shall have a permanent character and shall not be altered without the written consent of all the apartment owners. Both the sections, though deal with two different time periods in the life of an apartment owner, but have the same effect, i.E. Without permission no alterations can be made in the original sanctioned map.
• the competent authority has failed to enforce the act and demand the promoter/ builder to furnish the consent of the buyers. This leaves buyer completely unaware of the amendment in the map and therefore open area and facilities guaranteed under the layout are drastically reduced.
• the enforcement of an act becomes paramount and in this regard the builder and competent authority have failed to follow the 2010 act as well as the 2011 rules and enforce them in the true sense that it was required. The aforesaid provisions clearly indicate that any change in the building plans, specifications including far without the consent of the buyer is in violation of the apartment act.

2.2 newly introduced pre-possession letter is foreign to allotment letter:
I. There is absolutely no reference of due date/ number of days it will take to offer possession, after payment of dues in the pre-possession letter. Any possession related formalities without any firm deadline for possession o[censored]nits is meaningless, superfluous and simply a tactic of delay and extort money from the buyers.
Ii. Status of completion/occupancy certificates applied by supertech or approved by gnida-being a statutory compliance which is missing in this case.
Iii. The site visit clearly indicates that the essential committed facilities are not in place and possession without such benefits is meaningless.

2.3 suspicious activity of supertech, court judgements and inordinate delay in projects
I. Supertech’s application dated 15.12.2014 to gnida for issuance of completion certificate for ev-2 was rejected on 19.12.2014 by gnida.
Ii. Because of flouting building norms allahabad high court and supreme court had held supertech guilty of violating the state laws and norms in supertech’s emerald court, sector 93 a.
Iii. The possession has been delayed without any notification and providing any reasons for such delay. The buyers were invited on 28.2.2015 for possession ceremony and mr. Mohit arora, md of supertech publicly declared that the possession will be offered within 30 days. Further, many allotees have paid 100% of the amount but even after a wait for more than a year, they have not received any possession letter.

2.4 illegal/unduly charges:
I. In regards to the additional compensation charges, i would like to draw your attention to the rti number 10045 dated 27.11.2015 and the response by gnida. The rti states that the builder will not hold the buyer to pay for an increased farmer compensation charges and no such order was passed by gnida. It has been further stated that there is no such resolution passed in this regard which requires the buyer to make this payment.
Ii. Any request for the payment of remaining 5% is invalid at the time of pre-possession.
Iii. The buyers have been charged with “park facing plc”, but to our surprise there are no parks that were promised in the original layout. The park has been replaced with either new towers or other permanent structures.
Iv. Why is the builder demanding additional compensation when they started selling the flats in 2012 with a whopping of 50% increased rate? The builder buyer agreement (Bba) doesn’t mention any such charge or the liability of buyer to pay for such charges.
V. The labour cess has to be paid by the builder. Why is the builder passing all these costs to a buyer?

2.5 discriminatory practice: the actions of the builder have always been discriminatory. Some of the allotment letter contains an escalation clause, while some of them don’t.
Cape town is a project of supertech situated in sector 74, noida where the recent protest by the buyers compelled the builder to reduce the maintenance rate from 2.50 per sqft to 1.70 per sqft. The current rate for eco v2 is 2.50 per sqft which is unfair.

2.6 intentional delay in oc/cc: the developer is involved a dirty game, wherein they are not providing us the completion certificate from the gnida. Instead of obtaining the completion certificate they have started offering possession to buyers. There is a possibility that the illegal flats will get registered with the revenue department. Several rti applications filed by the rwas of many group housing projects including supertech have revealed that developers have built more than the sanctioned number of flats.

2.7 housing is a basic human necessity and the quality of the house as well as its environment plays an important role in the growth of individuals, both physically and mentally, which comes within the mandate of article 21 of the constitution. Any interference with such a right will be against the principles of article 21.
3. Requests
3.1 in light of the aforesaid submissions, i request you to pass the following orders:
I. Cancel the approval for purchase of additional far granted by greater noida industrial development authority to the developer.
Ii. Not grant any further approval for purchase of additional far by the developer in the absence of my consent in accordance with the directions of the hon’ble high court in the apartment act.
Iii. Direct the developer to seek prior consent of the apartment owners for any change in the original buildings plans, layouts, specifications, etc.
Iv. In view of the above, the pre-possession letter being extraneous in reference to the agreement, without any oc/cc and having undue/illegal charges is vitiated, redundant, and meaningless. Supertech should therefore withdraw the pre-possession letter and issue “offer of possession” along with the copy of oc/cc from gnida, indicating firm date of possession and schedule of completion/availability of facilities committed by supertech.
V. The builder should provide status of percentage (%) of open landscaped area and restoration of 82% open area.
Vi. Please update the buyer on status of park facing flats.
Vii. Withdrawal o[censored]nduly and illegal charges, such as:
• purported increase in super area which is vitiated and illegal.
• increase in the super area generally originates from the increase in common area. In our case the common area has eroded and 5 new structures have been built in the project. As an aggrieved buyer, i demand extra 10% compensation should be paid to each individual buyer and cancel the fictitious claim of increased far area charges.
• late interest payment, escalation charge, labour welfare charges, and additional compensation charges.
• the maintenance charges are very high and should be fixed at a nominal rate of 1.50 per sqft keeping in mind the recent decision at supertech cape town project (Mentioned above). The location of noida extension is relatively cheaper from noida and such adjustment should be made in the maintenance charges.

3.2 i would be pleased to furnish any clarifications or additional information you may require in support of my/our representation. Any request for further information may be addressed to the undersigned.
I would thereby request you to please look into this matter and take the appropriate remedial steps.

Thanking you,