Coming down heavily on Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority (YEIDA) for turning a blind eye towards homebuyers, the Supreme Court on Friday asked it to file an affidavit indicating the monetary and other concessions it gave to them and also inform what steps it had taken to protect their interests during the subsistence of the concession agreement it had with erstwhile promoter Jaiprakash Associates Ltd.
“You are not concerned with the homebuyers; that’s where the problem lies. The ultimate sufferers are the homebuyers…You cannot say that I’m concerned with my dues and the homebuyers, who are the real sufferers, can bear the brunt,” a bench led by Justice Sanjiv Khanna told Solicitor General Tushar Mehta who argued that YEIDA was not against the Suraksha Realty’s resolution plan reaching finality and it wanted to extend a helping hand to flat buyers who had booked their flats in the residential projects in Noida.
While issuing notice to the monitoring committee of Jaypee Infratech Ltd on YEIDA’s appeal, Justice Khanna also asked the authority to inform if it had any scheme or a policy in place to ensure that flat buyers’ interests were protected.
The judge reiterated that the flat buyers were the real sufferers in this protracted litigation and the court will have to step in in case YEIDA does not do anything. The apex court then posted the matter for further hearing in October.
The affidavit was sought in view of the YEIDA’s statements recorded by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) that it will continue to favour rehabilitation of the Yamuna Expressway project.
YEIDA had moved the SC challenging the NCLAT’s decision granting approval to Suraksha Realty’s resolution plan for Jaypee Infratech.
The authority said that though it supported rehabilitation of Jaypee Infratech (JIL) and the project(s) being executed by it, the only reason for its appeal was to preserve the framework of the Concession Agreement, under which the land was given to the corporate debtor (JIL), and to ensure recovery of dues owed to the public exchequer.
Non-payment of the claims towards external development charges (EDCs) and additional compensation payable to the farmers results is a burden on public funds and would result in direct loss to the public exchequer with trickling down effect on the industrial and urban development, the appeal filed through counsel Divyam Agarwal stated.
Jaypee Infratech was admitted to the insolvency in 2017 on a plea by IDBI Bank. After a series of rounds of litigation, the case moved the NCLAT which approved the resolution plan in May.
The appellate tribunal had held that Yamuna authority’s consent was not required for approval of Suraksha’s resolution plan and providing Yamuna authority merely Rs 10 lakh towards EDCs charges of Rs 525.91 crore was valid and legal. Even Suraksha was asked to pay only Rs 1334 crore against YEIDA’s claim of Rs 1689 crore additional compensation payable to farmers in five instalments over a period of four years, a stand opposed by the authority.
YEIDA had in 2008 had granted rights to JIL to construct a six-lane 160 km long super expressway with rights to collect toll on the Yamuna Expressway and to commercially exploit the land for development for 6,177 acre of land abutting the Yamuna Expressway.
