No announcement yet.

Noida Extension Buyers Unite Against Builders


Noida Extension Buyers Unite Against Builders

Last updated: August 29 2012
564 | Posts
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Re : Noida Extension Buyers Unite Against Builders

    Originally posted by saurabh2011 View Post
    KEEP Hold your property but do not give any new installment to builder at all till situation clear. Cancelling booking in new builders projects means you will loose lots of money and will get remaining money after very long time.
    Hi Agree withSaurabh .........

    I understand situation is not all that promising as of now but still as long as no mazor issue with the property ( I mean if its not in disputed land as of now) I thin one shoud stick toinvestments .

    Incase the project is in disputed land then no point accepting any discounts and rather should claim refunds with interest ...... Though I know its easy said then done .... but no point loosing hard earned money...


    • Re : Noida Extension Buyers Unite Against Builders

      cancellation is not the right choice!

      hold your property & be patient....

      its billions on the stake...


      • Re : Noida Extension Buyers Unite Against Builders

        How should state govt's handle the land acquisition issue?

        It has become clear that land acquisition is a controversial and troublesome subject in several states from Orissa to West Bengal and UP. The issue has provoked protests, legal suites and much anger.

        Trinamool Congress minister of state for urban affairs Saugata Roy, one of the leading lawyers representing the Tatas, Mukul Rohatgi, the chairman of the Amrapali Group, Anil Kumar Sharma and well known lawyer Pranay Vakil examine what increasingly looks like a messy situation and look at what steps are needed to pave the way forward.

        Below is a verbatim transcript of their interview with CNBC-TV18’s Karan Thapar.

        Q: Would you expect that after recent developments this week in UP, Bengal, Orissa - land acquisition seem to be a messy and troublesome subject and it seems each state is doing exactly what it wants?

        Roy: I do not think it’s a messy and troublesome subject but the states which are still going by the Land Acquisition Act 1894, are making a mistake. That’s what they tried in UP and that’s why the Supreme Court has said in the case of acquisition of land for a housing complex that let us not have another Nandigram.

        The whole question is should the government be a party to the acquisition of land by private parties? The answer from our side is clearly, no. the government should not act as an intermediary or even as a facilitator. Let private parties buy land on their own. The Supreme Court has made a very important statement yesterday. They said that there is this word called ‘Public Purpose’ in the original Land Acquisition Act.

        The Supreme Court said that that is the source of all troubles that should be eliminated. ‘Public Purpose’ has been used to mean acquisition of land for Tata’s. So let us say ‘Government Purpose’ or ‘Private Purpose’ and not ‘Public Purpose’.

        Q: Is the court right in fearing that land acquisition often takes the form of one group giving to another, to use the courts language? It is development of one section of society only and therefore it’s prejudicial and not justifiable?

        Sharma: No, in fact, I was there present in the court and the court did not specifically ask this type of thing or they never said it like that. I would like to clearly specify the answer given by the honorable minister because this is not exactly a housing project.

        It is a part of the industrial development of the Greater Noida Authority is an industrial development authority that has according to their norm 15% of the land area need to be developed as housing as from the High Court. It has been mentioned as ‘housing’ as a part of planned industrial development.

        Q: But the concern that the court expresses is that the land was originally acquired at cheap rates and then transferred at a much higher price for the building of luxury flats and rhetorically, so judges even asked are you going to allot one apartment to each one of the farmers. Do you think that swop, covered as the state government says under the title industrial development plan, nonetheless, is uncomfortable and awkward?

        Vakil: I will just slightly backtrack because let’s talk about the basics. The basics is that each State can decide what kind of a land law they would like to have because it is a state subject and all that the Centre can do is make a recommendation as to what the State should be doing.
        We have gone through this process when we had a similar law by which a total holding of land was sort to be limited and that law was then subsequently abolished. Each of the States took their own time doing it. Now coming to the specific issue, the state has the power to decide on what they should do with this particular land and once they decide on that, the implementation is normally left to the system, which takes care of it.

        Q: Are you suggesting that the court can’t inquire into the purpose of which the acquired land has been used and the court can’t question that you are originally ostensibly acquiring for industrial purposes at a cheaper price, but then using it at a higher price having swoped it for luxury flats?

        Vakil: No, every industry has some kind of a residential component. Go to any big industry, they will have a residential component. Now, whether that component is justified or not is something which the industry will decide on the basis of the number of labourers they are going to have, number of officers they are going to have etc. For the Supreme Court to really ask on whether that housing is going to be sold to an outsider or is going to be made available to support the industry which is coming up is the main question to my mind.

        Q: Has the Supreme Court in asking this question: A) About the swop of the land from industrial to residential and B) Pointing out that it is acquired at a cheaper rate and swoped at a higher rate exceeded its powers? Has it in a sense transgressed into a domain that is strictly reserved for each state to decide for itself?

        Rohatgi: I don’t agree that the court has transgressed its powers. The court is the final arbiter of deciding whether the acquisition is valid or invalid and if it is shown to the court that if land it acquired at Rs 1 from a farmer and immediately handed over without doing anything with that land at Rs 100 to somebody else and the state pockets, then sadly it is what is classically called fraud in power. So there is no question of saying that the court cannot examine.

        I heard the honorable minister saying let us remove ‘Public Purpose’ from the Act. If you remove ‘Public Purpose’ from the Act, the Act will lose its main pull factor. You cannot have an absolute extreme position that it is only for ‘Government Purpose’ which should be allowed. If ‘Government Purpose’ is to be substituted for ‘Public Purpose’ then it is the government’s job to provide health, education, housing etc and if government is unable to provide then obviously it has to step in for private purposes.

        How should state govt's handle the land acquisition issue? - CNBC-TV18 -


        • Re : Noida Extension Buyers Unite Against Builders

          Now everyone is asking for unwanted demands

          आबादी निस्तारण के लिए बनी नई नीति का मायचा गांव के किसानों ने विरोध जताते हुए बैकलीज न कराने का निर्णय लिया है। किसानों ने प्राधिकरण के सीईओ को पत्र देकर आबादी की जमीन फ्री होल्ड करने की मांग की है।

          किसानों की शुक्रवार को जवाहर इंटर कॉलेज में पंचायत हुई। किसानों ने कहा कि पट्टा प्रालेख आबादी का निस्तारण नहीं मानेंगे। पुराने तर्ज पर आबादी का निस्तारण किया जाएगा। आबादी की जमीन को फ्री होल्ड किया जाएगा। किसानों कहा कि छह फीसदी आबादी की जमीन का आवंटन तुरंत किया जाए।

          -navbharaat times


          • Re : Noida Extension Buyers Unite Against Builders


            The uncertainty over the status of land acquired by the Greater Noida authority in Shahberi village has affected the development in the entire Noida Extension and other nearby areas in the region.

            The total land acquired in the Shahberi village by the authority is around 175 hectare. As against this, the total land area in the Noida Extension is around 1,000 hectare. However, some of the farmers in the other villages have also expressed their intention to challenge the land acquisition by the authority.

            A senior official of the Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority (GNIDA) said that in other villages, farmers have already accepted the compensation. In the Shahberi village also, some farmers have accepted the compensation. However, some farmers went to the court to challenge the land acquisition process. The bone of contention was the GNIDA’s decision to invoke a clause under which farmers could not raise any objection to the land acquisition.

            The GNIDA official said that as soon as the authority announced its intention to acquire the land and invoked related provision in the area, some of the colonisers started buying land from farmers at around 10% premium to the rate authority was offering to farmers. At the same time, colonisers started selling the land so acquired to the general public at around Rs 1,500 per sq meter.

            The official said that this would have led to development of another unauthorized colony. To stop this, the authority decided to invoke the provision by which farmers had to sell the land to the authority alone.

            A senior GNIDA official hoped that the Supreme Court would decide the matter soon and clear the uncertainty that is hanging over the sector in Noida Extension. The next hearing of the Supreme Court is scheduled for July 5.

            In fact, the problem was further compounded as the authority allotted the land to various developers who in turn launched housing projects on the land. Though, only a few projects are affected by the cancellation order of the Allahabad high court, doubts have been raised over all the projects in the area. Noida Extension provided a great opportunity to the middle class people to buy two-bedroom apartments in the range of Rs 15 lakh and Rs 18 lakh. Threebedroom apartments are available in the range of Rs 18 lakh and Rs 25 lakh.

            Even the authority is not able to sell houses in this price range in Noida and Greater Noida. It is a known fact that Noida Extension has played a major role in containing the prices of apartments in the affordable range in the region. Over one lakh apartments are being built in the area.

            Despite the fact that developers are giving assurances to buyers that their interests are fully protected, end users are feeling jittery. This has not only affected the future sale of apartments in the area but has also affected construction of projects and hit their timely delivery to buyers.

            A senior banker said that the need of the hour is that more such projects should have been allowed to come up so that demand for housing could be met. The banker pointed out that in Noida Extension, it is the government that should be blamed. He said that from the builder side, it was a clean deal as they bought land from the government authority in open auctions. Nothing can be cleaner than this kind of deal.

            “Builders cannot ensure that the land acquired from farmers is clean,” he said; particularly, in a situation where most of the acquisitions were hassle-free. The authority should have followed a proper process of law to acquire the land.

            Farmers should have been given proper compensation. But, this trouble in the midst of the construction of a project will not only delay its implementation but also affect its viability, he said.

            The banker said that it is essential to evolve a proper regulation to develop townships so that India can meet housing requirements of the future.

            According to a United Nations report, India has the highest rate of change of urban population among the BRIC (now BRICS) nations, which will remain above 2% annually, for the next three decades. At this rate, an estimated 854 million people will live in Indian cities by 2050, a figure which is the combined population of present day USA, Brazil, Russia, Japan and Germany. Even in the coming decade, India will add 95 million people to its already dense urban fabric, nearly one-fourth of its current urban population.

            Anuj Puri, the chairman and country head of Jones Lang LaSalle India, in a recent speech said that India needs more cities, and “it is a mere understatement to say that we might be misjudging the dimensions of the situation”. With a land area one third the size of the US, India harbours nearly three times the population, Puri said. Not surprisingly, Indian cities are not only the most populous but also among the densest urban agglomerations in the world, which pose unique challenges to the development of infrastructure and real estate, he added.

            On top of this, because of large low middle-class population in the country, affordable housing is a real problem in India. The income pyramid in India is heavy at the bottom, with over 60% of the households’ earnings averaging less than Rs 80,000 per year, Puri said.

            Nearly 19% of the households can’t afford any type of housing through their income. Another 44.6% of the households in the lower middle income group can’t afford a house in Tier I or II cities. In this backdrop, Puri says, builders, architects and the government have to plan real estate development which conforms to the needs of the income pyramid of India.

            QUICK BITES



            -The Economic Times


            • Re : Noida Extension Buyers Unite Against Builders

              Why SC see it to Noda extension only

              Can anyone tell me a single industrial area where the Industry house took / acquired a land by article 6 or article 17 to start industry in that particular area but did not constructed residential areas.

              Take Jamshedpur, Dhanbad, Raigad (Maharastra), Bokaro, Bhillai etc. The land were acquired by stating that the governmen / industry house will establish industry. But not only there was industry but there were residential colony established as by prouct. BUT NEVER SUPREM COURT QUESTIONED IT. SUPREME COURT JUDGES WERE SLEEPING. Can SC see & read all the history of land acquired in Indian history. Remember SC CAN'T EVEN DREAM TO CANCEL THE NOIDA EXTENSION LAND ON NAME OF INDUSTRIAL Vs RESIDENTIAL GROUND.The noida extension rsidential land is fully appoved by Greater Noida Master Plan 2020/2030, which is fully in the ambit of UP Gvernment. SC HAS NO RIGHT TO CHALLENG A STATE ON IT MASTER PLAN OF A CITY. SC can only see whether a colony or development is in accrding to master plan. If SC go beyond it then all the residential colony in indstrial town will be declared illegal by that norm. Residential colony is some 15% of indusrial part of master map of G.N. So no one can say why the land was acquired for industrial purpose but given for residential purpose.


              • Re : Noida Extension Buyers Unite Against Builders

                Politics and Politicians are playing a much bigger role in this country that you can even imagine.

                By the way just for your information.....In 2003 when Mulayam singh denotified the entire district of gautam budh nagar and made noida a part of ghaziabad and greater noida a part of bulandshahr.....The matter was solved in RECORD time in supreme court...and Gautam buddha nagar district was restored swiftly.....

                One of the main reasons was that Huge Colonies in prime sectors of noida, greater noida were alotted to high court and supreme court judges.....and they certainly didnt want their own property to go for a toss.

                Huge numbers of High court and supreme court judges have plotted colonies in prime sectors of noida and greater noida.

                While supreme court is giving all fundas in media...but somehow Not even a single question was raised on the following matter:
                - If cases by farmers were pending in HC since 2008 and supposedly more are pending...then how the hell the noida authority was allowed to auction and sell the land to builders ????
                - How come the builders who were aware that the land they have bought (or rather paid 10 percent booking amount to Noida authority) is having pending cases against them...still managed to put it on sale to poor end users......???
                - How come the banks started granting loans for same????

                Just shows how this country's judicial system say that judicial system is not effected by political powers is being simply dumb....else a terorrist caught live on camera killing innocent people in mumbai would have been hanged within 1,2 months of arrest.

                The court is talking only about farmers as they are the vote bank....aam aadmi who bought in noida extension has zero value as vote no one bothers about him


                • Re : Noida Extension Buyers Unite Against Builders

                  Bhiwadi is not that expensive. I found the prices to be close to Rs 1600/sqft(all inclusive) for a decent size 2 Bhk floor/flat. RNE looks to be close to Rs 2300-2500(all inclusive).

                  Originally posted by Mogammo
                  But whenever I see property ads of Bhiwadi I realize that society flats of Bhiwadi are just 10%-20% cheaper than RNE, and such ads I am seeing from last several years thats why I say that if there is little bit difference in price then RNE is better than Bhiwadi. Personally for GGN jobs person I also say Bhiwadi is good options at that rate. As for Plots Bhiwadi is good option but soon with in next 18 months GDA authority is also going to launch AUTHORITY PLOT options in RNE at the rate of 17000+ Per Sq. Yard (under the name of NOOR NAGAR TOWNSHIP, I got this news form my friend who work in GDA) then I think the cheap plot rates in Bhiwadi will not be as attractive as now for investors. Just give my 2 cents, personally I like each & every affordable area including Bhiwadi.


                  • Re : Noida Extension Buyers Unite Against Builders

                    उपजाऊ भूमि के अधिग्रहण पर रोक लगाने की मांग

                    किसानों ने प्राधिकरण और सरकार से उपजाऊ भूमि के अधिग्रहण पर तत्काल रोक लगाने की मांग की है। ग्रामीण पंचायत मोर्चा के बैनर सादुल्लापुर में रविवार को पंचायत हुई। इसमें वैदपुरा, मिलक, रोजा जलालपुर, छोटी मिलक व सुनपुरा आदि गांव के किसान शामिल हुए। निर्णय लिया गया कि भूमि अधिग्रहण के विरोध में क्षेत्र में जागरूकता अभियान शुरू किया जाएगा। गांव-गांव जाकर किसानों को एकजुटकर जुलाई के अंत में महापंचायत की जाएगी। क्षेत्र में तब प्राधिकरण का निर्माण एवं विकास कार्य नहीं होने दिया जाएगा।

                    मोर्चा के संयोजक प्रधान रणवीर सिंह नागर ने कहा कि कृषि भूमि के अधिग्रहण से किसान परिवार बेरोजगार हो रहे हैं। मुआवजा काफी कम दिया जा रहा है। उससे दूसरा व्यवसाय शुरू नहीं हो सकता। कुछ ही दिन में मुआवजे की रकम समाप्त हो जाती है। जिन गांवों की जमीनों का अधिग्रहण पांच वर्ष पहले हुआ था, वहां के किसानों की आर्थिक स्थिति चरमराई हुई है। अनेकों परिवार भूखमरी के कगार पर है।

                    प्राधिकरण को भूमि अधिग्रहण से पहले किसान परिवार के सदस्यों के लिए रोजगार की व्यवस्था करनी चाहिए, ताकि जमीन जाने के बाद किसान बेरोजगार न हों। मोर्चा के अध्यक्ष तेजराम यादव ने कहा कि जब तक किसान एकजुट नहीं होंगे, तब तक शोषण होता रहेगा। जबरन किसानों की भूमि छीनी जा रही है। इसके विरोध में आवाज बुलंद करनी होगी अन्यथा किसान बेरोजगार हो जाएंगे। निर्णय लिया गया कि मांग पूरी होने तक क्षेत्र में कही भी प्राधिकरण का निर्माण कार्य नहीं होने दिया जाएगा।

                    -navbharat times


                    • Re : Noida Extension Buyers Unite Against Builders

                      Should Govt stop directly acquiring land for Industry?

                      The government should facilitate release of farmland for commercial use, through law and enforcement, but not directly undertake such release. Ideally, commercial users of erstwhile farmland should lease the land from its owners, rather than expropriate farmers. Urbanisation is a corollary to sustained high growth: industry and services that drive this fast growth do not flourish on the farm.

                      This calls for increasing the supply of urban land -- around existing towns and, in some cases, by converting wholly rural, fertile land into urban land where to build factories, office complexes and housing and other amenities for those who work in the factories and offices. And the scale of demand for additional urban land would also be substantial.

                      If India is to become 45% urban by the middle of the next decade, and assuming that India is already close to 32% urban, around 25 crore people would need to additionally shift from country to town. Assuming a population density of 15,000 per sq km, the minimum additional urban land required to house these new town dwellers would be 16,700 sq km. That is roughly 12 new Delhis.

                      If we want people to live in less congested circumstances, the land needed to be released would go up to 16 New Delhis or even 20. Do we have any policy in place to release land, without creating mass protests? Forcible acquisition of land is no answer. Singur and Nandigram and the farmers of UP amply prove that. Nor will parcel by parcel purchase of the needed land by a project developer work.

                      Different people would bargain to get different rates, the rates rising over the time it takes to complete the acquisition process, paving the way for discontent among those who sold cheap. And once the project is developed and real estate values soar, those who held on to their land would become very prosperous while their ex-neighbours would be relative paupers nursing a grudge.

                      You need acquiescence, not acquisition. For that, farmers need to be stakeholders in what comes up on their land, not an alienated, vengeful bunch of newly landless destitutes ready to strike out any which way. There are no standard prescriptions as to how to make stakeholders out of land losers. The latest Mayawati package offered to farmers in Greater Noida is a way forward: upfront compensation, a steady stream of payments for the future and a portion of the land to be returned to the farmer as built-up real estate.

                      But it is possible to engineer even better ways of packing certainty and fairness into the compensation offered to farmers. Satish Magar, a Pune builder, saw the process of farmers selling out their land to realtors, blowing up their lump-sum compensation and ending up as gardeners while their womenfolk worked as maids in the new housing projects that came up on the land they once owned.

                      He persuaded fellow Magars to pool their land, create a company and build a township on the pooled land. The town leased its premises to IT parks, schools, etc while the erstwhile farmers sold services to the new town dwellers. This form of urbanisation offers the farmer complete fairness and certainty of future income. In the absence of such entrepreneurship, it is possible to think of hybrid arrangements.

                      Should Govt stop directly acquiring land for Industry? - The Economic Times


                      Have any questions or thoughts about this?