SC stops flats in Noida Extension
The investments of over 30,000 home-buyers in Noida Extension — a hub of three villages adjacent to the Capital — has been put to risk, as the Supreme Court refused on Monday to allow construction of apartments in one of the villages, Shahberi.delhi Updated: Jun 28, 2011 00:22 IST
The investments of over 30,000 home-buyers in Noida Extension — a hub of three villages adjacent to the Capital — has been put to risk, as the Supreme Court refused on Monday to allow construction of apartments in one of the villages, Shahberi.
It turned down the plea of the Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority and builders, including Supertech and Amrapalli, to stay the May 12 Allahabad high court order that quashed the authority’s notification, acquiring 156.3 hectares land in the village.
The authority bought the land from farmers at a cheap price for industrial projects, but later “swapped” and “transferred” it to builders for residential projects.
The authority is, however, yet to appeal against the high court’s two other orders setting aside the acquisition of 72 hectares in Surajpur and 170 hectares in Gulistanpur villages.
Justice P Sathasivam of the Supreme Court said while fixing July 5 to hear appeals that the apex court would step in to stop “more Nandigrams”, which witnessed large-scale protests and violence in West Bengal against the erstwhile CPI (M) government's land acquisition policy.
The bench also questioned the urgency clause invoked to acquire the land, denying the land-owners the right to file their objections.
It said the acquisition was for the development of just one section of society. “Whose residential use are these flats for? Who is building them? What are the prices? We want to go into the details of the case. This urgency clause is not automatically invoked,” the court observed.
The court said it would not close its eyes to the state government's “one-sided” policy. “You should develop government land, and not give away prime agricultural land.”
The court also warned the state to stop the practice of “taking land from one side and giving it to the other. If this does not stop, the court would step in”.
When the authority's counsel contended the acquisition was part of its well-known 2021 industrial development plan, Justice Sathasivam shot back: “Are you going to allot one apartment to each one of them (farmers)?”