NOIDA: The Allahabad high court last week dismissed a homebuyer’s plea, seeking the reopening of a sealed flat at Mayfair Residency society in Greater Noida‘s Techzone IV.
Dismissing the plea, the two-judge bench of Justices Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal said that the petitioner’s rights over the property were “doubtful” and there was a possibility that the plea was filed as “proxy” by the builder, Supercity Developers.
The plea, filed by a homebuyer in Sept last year, alleged that the flat was sealed by the district administration without legal authority and there was no recovery pending against her otherwise.
In an earlier hearing this month, the bench asked the petitioner to submit details of possession of the flat and its registry.
The homebuyer did not submit this affidavit, prompting the Allahabad high court to observe that the flat was allotted to the petitioner, but there was no document to show that the person was in possession of the flat.
UP govt’s counsel also told the court that there was a recovery certificate of Rs 8.6 crore issued against the builder- Supercity Developers – under the Real Estate (Regulation & Development) Act, 2016.
The counsel also pointed out that the developer was running its office from the sealed flat, strengthening the administration’s decision to seal it.
The administration had sealed the office of Supercity Developers in July 2022 for failing to refund homebuyers in its Mayfair Residency project due to non-delivery of flats.
“Despite opportunity, such possession letter has not been placed on record,” the bench said last Thursday.
The Allahabad high court added: “We do not find any occasion to interfere in the present writ petition as the rights of the petitioner over the property are doubtful and the possibility of it being a proxy petition of the builder cannot be ruled out.”
The court also declined to examine the procedure followed before sealing the flat. “We also refuse to examine the procedure followed for attachment at the instance of the present petitioner. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed,” read the order.
