In a country like ours, the biggest aspiration of a middle-class family is to own a house or a dwelling unit for which they sacrifice their present and save money to fulfil their dream. With the rapid urbanisation now compared with 1950 when only 17 per cent of the population of India was living in cities now in 2024 more than 35 per cent of the population is living in urban areas. There has been a big push for the housing real estate business in the country during the last 20 to 25 years. The housing societies mushroomed with the creation of urban local bodies in most of the districts in states like NOIDA authority in NCR and similar agencies in Gurgaon and Faridabad etc. These agencies and authorities were purported to be the harbinger of well-planned housing and civic amenities at reasonable costs. However, the builder’s lobby convinced the powers that be in the name of professional management and superior technology replacing the society-oriented approach with an auction-oriented approach thereby increasing the costs of flats or houses to many folds and paving the way for mushrooming real estate companies without checks.
One such project run by the thugs of Amrapali in NOIDA had not only swindled the money of around 45,000 buyers but left the projects bankrupt. The Supreme Court in 2019 in an epoch-making historical judgement that surely be remembered as one of the finest moments of Indian jurisprudence and the validation of constitutional rights of giving relief to thousands of flat buyers in a single decision.It happened when the Central and Uttar Pradesh governments the executive arm of our constitution coincidentally or deliberately proved incompetent in handling the swindlers leaving the flat buyers in a lurch.
This decision of the Apex Court in 2019 marked a turning point for more than 46,000 homebuyers affected by Amravati’s defunct projects in NOIDA and Greater NOIDA. The Court appointed a Receiver, and vested with him control over the group’s assets and properties, tasked with coordinating their sale, managing funds through a consortium of Banks and ensuring completion of the projects. The National Building Construction Corporation (NBCC) was appointed to undertake the construction of all unfinished flats.
The NBCC has since then made positive strides in completing the projects. According to estimates more than 16,000 flats are ready and around 6000 flats either had been handed over or waiting to be handed over.
However, one of the key aspects is the execution of projects as per the detailed original master plan and the quality of construction and the key promised facilities or infrastructure before handing over and for this the essential requirement is proper supervision and monitoring. The recent social media statements by buyers are an indication that everything is not hunky-dory and the learned Receiver who had so far done an excellent job in handling the projects needs to reassess with NBCC and buyers’ representatives to sort out the unacceptable delays and rumours of harassment of buyers. Let us discuss some of the key issues the NBCC and the Receiver office need to take note of without further delay.
First, there are serious complaints about the quality of work in projects, undue delay in the creation of approved facilities and deviation from some of the planned work. NBCC had not diligently checked the quality of construction before handing it over resulting in complaints. For example, the quality of Johnson’s lifts and their maintenance is not good and no cameras were installed in lifts despite the promise made by them. Despite opposition from buyers, the NBCC is determined to use the space marked for a dispensary in the Centurian Park Terrace Home project for other purposes.
Second, in the Receiver office, there are cases where the verification of completed flats has been pending since November 2024. This delay in verifying the payment and other details before handing over the apartments is an irritant because this should be done by NBCC only as they have all the details which can be shared with the Receiver office simultaneously creating yet another bureaucracy in the Receiver office which is already short-staffed is uncalled for. All records can be simultaneously updated in the Bank, NBCC and Receiver office as most payments except a few are made electronically.
Third, the instruction issued by the Receiver office recently regarding stopping the transfer of flats before registration ostensibly to prevent brokers from playing around is not desirable. The flat owners have waited for more than 15 years and must have the freedom to decide on a sale for which the Receiver office was rightly charging transfer fees to create an additional income for the particular project. The Receiver office should rescind this order and make provision for clearing the transfer within a week so that the crowd and agents do not hover around his office. This at present takes several days and even months.
Fourth, the NBCC had decided to construct more flats to garner funds for the projects by using the excess Floor Area Ratio. However, the NBCC have floated the tender for bulk auction sale of 85 per cent flats to the interested real estate firms for marketing which is likely to increase the cost of flats to manifold as many intermediaries will spring up. The primary aim of the project is to provide affordable housing and this decision will spring up many intermediaries. Then the question is who will be allocating the balance of 15 per cent of flats at the base price and it is bound to create allegations of nepotism and favouritism. There is no reason why to reverse the way NBCC sold inventories through consultants as they did in O2 Valley. This should be revisited by the Receiver and the Court if need be.
Fifth, the Residential Adhoc bodies have not been provided with sanctioned layouts, maps, statutory clearance certificates, fire NOCs, lift NOCs, pollution certificates, reports of construction etc by NBCC. Why to shy away from this? This is a major cause of concern in all Amrapali projects as well as the absence of buyers’ representatives in the monitoring system. The NBCC must form a project-wise monitoring committee with buyers’ representatives so that implementation is smooth and the honourable Court should give direction for transparency and smooth execution.
If these suggestions are incorporated by project authorities, this unique intervention by the Supreme Court will lay the foundation for fair, accountable and transparent governance by the executive in such matters in future.
The Supreme Court’s 2019 intervention in the Amrapali case was a landmark decision that brought much-needed relief to thousands of distressed homebuyers. While NBCC has made commendable progress, several critical concerns remain unaddressed. Issues related to construction quality, delays in verification, deviation from planned amenities, and lack of transparency in decision-making continue to frustrate buyers.
The Receiver’s office, which has played a pivotal role so far, must reassess its approach and work closely with NBCC and buyer representatives to resolve these concerns. Key recommendations include ensuring strict quality control before handing over flats, streamlining the verification process to avoid bureaucratic delays, and rescinding restrictions on flat transfers to provide much-needed flexibility to homeowners.
Additionally, the decision to bulk-sell new flats to real estate firms should be reconsidered to maintain affordability and prevent undue profiteering. Transparency is paramount—NBCC must release all statutory documents and actively involve buyers in monitoring committees to ensure fair and accountable governance. If these corrective steps are taken, this Supreme Court-led intervention will set a precedent for just and transparent housing policies, safeguarding the dreams of countless homebuyers and reinforcing faith in the judiciary’s role in upholding citizens’ rights.
(The writer is former director general, Indian Council of Forestry Research and Education, and former Principal Secretary, Agriculture, Horticulture, Animal Resources and Forest Department, Government of Tripura. Views expressed are personal)
