While residents unanimously supported the issue of amenities provided by the builder in a shoddy manner, a dispute arose on the matters of construction of the school and demolition of the central park.
Acting upon the petition regarding the residents of Krishna Shipra Vista vs Shipra Estate Limited (SEL), developer of the society, the commissioner of Allahabad High Court visited the high-rise on Thursday to document the anomalies alleged by the petitioner against the claims made by the SEL in the HC.
Commissioner Anand Kumar Sinha visited the society to document the three-pointers alleged by the petitioner.
A) Failure in providing a primary school
B) Demolition of the central park inside the society
C) Shoddy job in providing the amenities to the residents
However, during his visit, a dispute between the residents came to the fore. While residents unanimously supported the issue of amenities provided by the builder in a shoddy manner, a dispute arose on the matters of construction of the school and demolition of the central park.
School missing from the 'masterplan'
A group of residents approached the commissioner with a masterplan of the society where the provision of the primary school was absent. Residents claimed that the masterplan was originally floated back in the year 2002 by SEL during the marketing of the project. It was sketched in the brochure.
Meanwhile, the proceedings of the court are moving on the basis of a different masterplan. This masterplan has the provision of a primary school inside the society premises and is approved by the Ghaziabad Development Authority (GDA).
"In the master plan which residents showed, the builder had smartly omitted the provision of school for the sake of sale of the flats. While in the one approved by the GDA, the school is very much there," claimed Arun Rai, the petitioner in the case.
As per the approved master plan, the school has to come up at a spot in the central park. A group of residents is against the construction of the school because the park is spawned in an area of 12000-metre square whereas the school is earmarked on an area of 3000-metre square, which is 25 per cent of the total area of the park. Besides, they cited reasons related to loss of green space, infringement of privacy, security and a loss of parking space behind opposing the construction of the school.
Amita Mahapatra, one of the residents opposing the construction of the school said that its presence would hinder the privacy of the residents. "We bought the flat on the basis of the masterplan shown on the brochure. We had no knowledge of the provision of a primary school on the premises. We are not ready to sacrifice our greenery for a building that neither were were aware, nor we need. The presence of school would hinder our privacy. Also, allowing a third party in our society would arise a security threat to the residents," Mahapatra explained.
Meanwhile, the construction of school would yield a huge loss for the residents as they would have to give away the parking space of over 200 vehicles in order to build the foundation of the school building. The parking space is in the basement below the spot notified to build the school. We would have to let go that as well.
Rai said that as per court order, the residents would receive compensation for their parking with interest. "Everything is being done in compliance to the master plan and the court order," Rai added.
"We don't need money, we need space. Where would the residents park their cars? We don't have space in society and nobody would take the risk of parking their vehicles outside the society. What are we supposed to do, sell our cars?" Mahapatra asked.
Claims of 'elevated' central park refuted
As far as demolition of the central park is concerned, Rai claimed that according to the approved masterplan, the central park should have been at the ground level which is currently elevated at 12 feet height from the ground level. However, Mahapatra has refuted this claim and stated the central park is developed on the ground, not on an elevated platform.
Details from the past
In December 2016, then RWA of the society had filed the petition and prayed the court to compel SEL to complete the construction of the society and deliver amenities promised to the homebuyers. In May 2017, SEL had filed an affidavit promising to complete the project and deliver all amenities promised to the residents during the sale of the flats.
The court commissioner has visited the society after the petitioner approached the HC and demanded a criminal proceeding under Section 340 of the CrPC against SEL. As claimed by the petitioner, SEL (the developer) has not fulfilled the promises it had mentioned in the affidavit filed in May 2017.
Next hearing in the case is scheduled on May 29.
