NOIDA: The Apartment Owners Association (AOA) of a Sector 107 condo has filed a petition with the Allahabad High Court against the developer’s proposal to construct an additional ultra-luxury residential tower in the complex.
The petition contests a Noida Authority decision that approved an increase in the Floor Area Ratio (FAR), allowing the developer to build a 46-story tower with units priced starting at Rs 7 crore, despite objections from current residents. The residents argued that any additional FAR should be used to enhance existing facilities and communal areas, rather than for a new exclusive section within the complex.
Great Value Sharanam AOA escalated the matter to the high court after the Uttar Pradesh government dismissed its revision petition against the Noida Authority’s order.
On October 27, the state government noted that the FAR approval was granted under the UP Industrial Area Development Act of 1976, making it exempt from the UP Apartment (Promotion of Construction, Ownership and Maintenance) Act of 2010, and stated that the AOA’s challenge was “not maintainable.” The government further highlighted that a similar challenge by the residents in 2017 had already been dismissed and that the latest petition did not meet the quorum requirements as per the AOA’s bylaws.
The AOA argued in the high court that the approval of additional FAR breached Section 5(3)(a) of the UP Apartment Act, which ensures that the percentage of each apartment owner’s undivided share in common areas is a “permanent right” that cannot be altered without unanimous consent from all apartment owners. They contended that acquiring additional FAR affected this undivided share and thus necessitated collective approval through a valid resolution.
According to the AOA, the developer sought authority to purchase more FAR and construct an additional tower on the remainder of the original land without securing new approvals from the residents.
On November 18, the high court bench, headed by Justice Arun Kumar, deemed the matter “requires consideration” and issued notices to all parties involved, including the Noida Authority, UP government, and the developer.
The court allowed three weeks for counter-affidavits to be filed and granted one extra week for the AOA’s response. To verify if there was adequate homeowner consent, the high court instructed the Noida Authority’s counsel to present the complete record of consent letters submitted by the developer when applying for additional FAR on December 18, when the case will be revisited.
So far, the Authority claims that the developer submitted 1,165 consent letters, of which 978 were validated, alongside 429 objections. A statement issued by the developer mentioned that the official records affirm that 1,165 flat owners agreed to the additional FAR purchase. “Those challenging the approval represent a minority within the AOA. The Noida Authority granted additional FAR after thoroughly following due process,” it stated.
The AOA, however, countered that the developer did not possess consent from a majority of homeowners during the application for additional FAR. The association contended that its objections, filed in 2024 against the additional FAR order, were not addressed by the Authority in its December 2024 decision.
The AOA asserted that the previous challenge dismissed in 2017 could not bind them since the AOA was not established at that time.
This version maintains the necessary details while enhancing readability and structuring.
