Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya of Calcutta High Court has virtually struck down a decision taken by the Mamata Banerjee government that the autonomous body, Housing Infrastructure Development Corporation (Hidco), will only provide land to private developers for constructing housing apartments for common citizens and it would not interfere in any dispute arisen between the private developers and the buyers of the apartment.
The judge was hearing a case between Binod Kumar Agarwal and others, and the State of West Bengal and others, and passed the order on November 10.
The judge allowed the allottees of the Sukhobrishti apartment project being constructed by Shapoorji Pallonji and Company Limited (SPCL) to make Hidco a party in a case they have moved against the construction company.
The construction company had entered into an agreement with Hidco on March 7, 2007 for constructing middle-income group (MIG) and low-income group (LIG) category flats in New Town Action Area III to sell to middle-class people, particularly senior citizens.
Hidco has been developing the mass housing complex, Sukhobrishti, over 150 acres in Action Area III, along with Bengal Shapoorji Housing Development (BSHD) and Shapoorji Pallonji Group. The project has been divided into 11 phases of about 1,850 flats per phase and comprises nearly 20,000 residential units for the MIG and LIG categories. But out of the nine phases advertised so far, only four have been completed and apartments handed over.
The agreement had stipulated that the project was to be implemented, phase-wise, in all respects within four years from the date of handing over land to the developer or from the date of sanction of the plan, whichever was later.
As the construction company failed to provide possession of flats to the buyers within the stipulated period, the flat owners filed a case against it in May 2021. They made Hidco a party to the case as the land on which the project was constructed was awarded by Hidco to Shapoorji at a low cost.
Shift in stance
Hidco was formed in the Left Front regime with a mandate to plan and execute development projects in the entire 6,000-7,000 hectare area in Rajarhat. The plots for constructing various projects would be under the control of Hidco and the construction companies would have to abide by the rules and guidelines framed by Hidco. The agreements were drawn up accordingly between the individual construction companies and the flat buyers in every Hidco-initiated project.
In the Sukhobrishti agreement, too, it is stated that until the completion of the mass housing project, the possession of the land by Shapoorji Pallonji shall not be exclusive but jointly with Hidco.
But, after coming to power, according to the petitioner’s counsel, the ruling Trinamul Congress government modified the rule in 2011 and decided that after handing over the plots to construction companies, Hidco would have no liabilities.
When the flat owners of Sukhobrishti moved the case in high court, the Hidco counsel argued that the case was not maintainable in law as Hidco could not be a party to the case.
“As such, the case is not maintainable as the case between two private parties cannot be entertained by the high court. Only cases against government organisations are entertainable by the high court,” the Hidco counsel argued.
Against this contention, Sabyasachi Chatterjee, the counsel appearing for the flat owners, argued: “Hidco cannot avoid its liabilty as according to the agreement between Hidco and Shapoorji, it was said that the construction company would have to obey the guidelines and pay adequate compensations to the flat owners (and to Hidco) for any delay in handing over the flats to them, Shapoorji has miserably failed to keep its promise that it had given to its buyers.”
After hearing the parties, the judge observed that the petition moved by the aggrieved Sukhobrishti flat allottees was maintainable and directed that the case be enlisted for hearing in January.
“The question raised in the present writ petition is not restricted merely to interpretation or implementation of a private contract but covers a broader spectrum inasmuch as the alleged dereliction of the public duty cast on the HIDCO and SPCL, as its agent in the public scheme, in implementing the mass housing project meant for LIG and MIG cross-sections of society is concerned,” his order observed.
With his decision, the judge has practically held that Hidco’s prayer was baseless and the organisation has the liberty to force the project implementer to meet the demands of the flat buyers. Most of the allottees of Sukhobrishti are yet to get possession and would obviously demand compensation. The order also implies that the issue of buyers’ demand for compensation would be properly considered.
Write to saltlake@abp.in