The Supreme Court of India has refused bail to Mr. Surendra Kumar Hooda, a former promoter of real estate company AN Buildwell. He had sought bail while challenging the cancellation of a land allotment by the Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority (YEIDA). This cancellation involved a substantial land parcel meant for a Sports City. Banks that had financed the parent company, Jaiprakash Associates Ltd (JAL), filed affidavits in support of JAL's petition to overturn YEIDA's decision. The court's decision underlines the complexity of the case, involving financial intricacies and legalities concerning land transactions, with Mr. Hooda ordered to surrender within eight weeks.
In a recent legal development, the Supreme Court of India has denied the bail plea of Mr. Surendra Kumar Hooda, a former promoter of the real estate company AN Buildwell. Mr. Hooda and Mr. Sunil Gandhi, both ex-promoters and directors of AN Buildwell, had approached the Supreme Court for relief against the cancellation of a land allotment by the Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority (YEIDA). This cancellation involved a substantial parcel of land measuring approximately 1,000 hectares, designated as a special development zone (SDZ) for the creation of a Sports City in Sector 25.
The saga surrounding this land allotment is rooted in complex financial and contractual issues. On February 12, 2020, YEIDA revoked the land allotment, citing unpaid land dues amounting to a significant INR 3,621 crore. The iconic Buddh International Circuit, India's only Formula One track that recently hosted a MotoGP race, is also part of this contentious land parcel.
The legal tussle involving the cancellation of this land allotment has drawn substantial attention and the involvement of financial institutions. A noteworthy development in the case is the involvement of banks that had financed Jaiprakash Associates Ltd (JAL), the parent company of AN Buildwell, which is part of the beleaguered Jaypee Group. These banks filed affidavits in support of JAL's writ petition, seeking the court to overturn YEIDA's decision to cancel the land allotment.
On October 4, a bench of justices Aniruddha Bose and Bela M Trivedi dismissed Mr. Hooda's plea and asked for the surrender of Mr. Hooda, granting him eight weeks to do so. It's important to highlight that the land in question holds strategic significance as it is associated with the Buddh International Circuit, a sporting facility of international repute. The cancellation of the land allotment has far-reaching consequences, given the significance of the projects and developments linked to this land.
One of the key arguments made in the legal proceedings was the calculation of the land dues by YEIDA. Mr. Hooda contended that YEIDA's computation of interest on the principal, even for the period after the cancellation of the allotment in February 2020, was illegal. This aspect is significant as it involves both financial intricacies and legalities concerning land transactions.
The court also considered Mr. Hooda's claim that YEIDA was charging lease rent on the land from the date of allotment and not from the date when the lease deed was officially registered. Additionally, Mr. Hooda asserted that YEIDA was charging interest on additional compensation despite not disbursing this compensation to the affected farmers. These claims underscore the complexities of land acquisition, allocation, and compensation in a region marked by rapid industrial and real estate development.
A recent report by an expert committee led by former Niti Aayog CEO Amitabh Kant was also cited in the legal proceedings. The report recommended that no interest should be levied on builders for a specific period during the Covid-19 pandemic. This recommendation added an additional layer of complexity to the legal discourse, as it addressed the economic context in which these events unfolded.
While the legal battle is ongoing, the fate of the land allotment and the projects associated with it hang in the balance. As Mr. Hooda is directed to surrender, the case underscores the multifaceted nature of legal disputes in the real estate sector and the far-reaching implications they can have. It also raises questions about the role of financial institutions, government bodies, and legal authorities in resolving complex real estate disputes with far-reaching implications.
Advertisement
Facebook
Whatsapp
