“We are all in a state of panic,” is how one of the residents of Tower 8 of Elita Garden Vista in New Town reacted when contacted by The Telegraph Salt Lake.

The tower has been pronounced to be an illegal construction in a verdict by a division bench of the Calcutta High Court last Friday. The court has directed the demolition of the tower with 26 floors and 160 apartments.

“There are more than 150 families, including tenants, residing in the tower for several years. About 100 of us are owners. The time-bound nature of the order means that if we cannot get a stay order within a month, demolition is bound to take place,” said Ayananta Chowdhury, who has called Tower 8 of the Action Area III condominium his home for almost five years now.

Back story

Elita Garden Vista was developed in two phases. In the first phase, eight towers came up, numbered 1 to 5 and 14 to 16. Towers 6 to 13 came up in the second phase, executed by a different developer.

The case dates back to 2018 when a writ petition was filed by some of the apartment owners of the original 15 towers against the promoter, the NKDA and the State, citing the original sanction plan. According to that plan, in 2007 Keppel Magus, the original developers, had published a brochure for the construction of a residential complex comprising 15 towers, each having 23 storeys and containing 1,278 flats. The complex was to come up on 99,983sq m allotted by WBHIDCO. The original building plan was sanctioned by NKDA on September 10, 2007.

The project changed hands in 2014, with Keppel Magus selling and transferring their rights to the current promoter, who applied for and got a revised sanction plan from the NKDA for the construction of an additional tower on an open landscape area on the western side of the apartment complex.

According to the petition filed in court, the writ petitioners came to know about the revised plan, dated August 20, 2015, much after construction had started on the extra tower — on January 10, 2017. The petition was filed after that.

The proportionate share in the common area of each apartment owner, the petitioners claimed, came to be reduced from 0.1 per cent to 0.08 per cent, the pathways came to be reduced by 600 sq m and the landscape and open areas “substantially less”.

A single bench order on September 5, 2018, agreed with the charge of illegality of the revised sanction plan issued by the NKDA, dated August 20, 2015, as well as the illegality of the 16th tower. But the judge did not restrain further construction. By then, 15 floors of the 26 had been built of the 16th tower. Instead, the promoters were directed to inform purchasers about the situation — that they would have to abide by the result of the writ petition.

Another single bench order, dated April 1, 2022, also refused to interfere with the construction, noting that the conditions of the earlier order were sufficient.

The current case is based on an appeal seeking to challenge portions of the earlier judgment, especially one that held that there was no need for the promoter to obtain the consent of the 15 towers.

Fast forward

The division bench has directed the demolition of Tower 8 within two months of the judgment date either by the promoter or by the NKDA at the promoter’s cost. The residents have been asked to move their effects within a month. The purchasers shall be refunded the purchase price, together with interest at a rate of seven per cent per annum.

“The verdict requires us to vacate the premises within one month. We are still in discussion about what to do,” Chowdhury said.

The developers, residents say, had informed them very perfunctorily about the disputed nature of the construction. “We saw it mentioned only in the sale deed, long after booking the flat. It was worded in such a fashion that anyone would think it is a minor matter that is part of any big project and will be dealt with,” he recalled.

Some of the residents spoken to said they were in the dark about the court case till months after moving in. “We got starry-eyed seeing the beautiful property,” one said. “Many here are retired couples who have invested their life’s savings here. This area is a bit away from the central business district and therefore, a haven for retirees,” one said.

The prospect of the return of the purchase amount along with seven per cent interest that the court has directed has brought them no relief. “Most of us have purchased the apartment with a bank loan. In the initial years, as is customary, the primary component of the EMI that we have paid is the interest, with the principal amount being barely 10 per cent. So most of us have been able to repay a very insignificant part of the principal amount. This means the builder will repay the bank the rest of the principal amount, leaving us with peanuts. Amader baritao gyalo, ar je taka invest korechhilam tar maximum ta chole gyalo. Can we buy any place in Calcutta with that money? No way! Ekdom rastay boshe jabo,” Chowdhury said.

Sympathy & worry

Of the 46 litigants who had moved court, none of those contacted by The Telegraph Salt Lake agreed to comment, directing queries to their law firm instead.

For the residents of Tower 7 and 9, the concern is as much for themselves as for their immediate neighbours. “Our WhatsApp group is abuzz on how our neighbouring towers might be affected if the demolition actually takes place. There may be collateral damage to our buildings which are barely 10m away,” said Sanjay Choudhury, a resident of Tower 7. “It cannot be demolished by bulldozers. It will require dynamite technique,” the engineer added.

Playing on their mind is another recent demolition by court order — of Supertech Twin Towers in Noida in August 2022. “That 32-storeyed structure needed dynamite implosion. But possession had not been given in that building while Tower 8 is occupied. Nor was there any other structure close to the Noida demolition site,” one of the residents said.

They are hoping that residents of Tower 8 and the builders will take necessary legal steps to stall the matter within the next two months.

Several neighbours from other towers expressed sympathy for the occupants of the disputed tower. “All this for 0.02 per cent more land! They have been residing side by side for five years now without any problem,” exclaimed a resident of Tower 13, who did not wish to be named, while also admitting the rationale behind the case filed. “But that was 10 years ago.”

Neighbours further point to the cost of the interiors as also registration fees and stamp duty charges on conveyance deed paid to the government, which are unlikely to be recovered. “They have been paying electricity charges and property taxes for so long. Will the NKDA refund those fees? And by when will the developer repay them? Will that be enough and in time for them to buy another place?” are the questions neighbours are raising.

Write to saltlake@abp.in