E-Paper
Noida luxury tower row reaches Allahabad High Court: All you need to know about homeowners’ consent and undivided share
A Noida allottees’ association has told the Allahabad High Court that granting the developer additional FAR violates Section 5(3)(a) of the UP Apartment Act
The Association of Allottees (AOA) of a Noida housing project in Sector 107 has moved the Allahabad High Court, challenging the developer’s plan to construct a new 46-storey tower with apartments priced from ₹7 crore. Homebuyers have contested a Noida Authority order that approved an additional floor area ratio (FAR), enabling the developer to add the tower despite objections from existing residents.
The AOA maintains that altering FAR changes each homeowner’s permanent share in common areas, which legally requires written consent from all apartment owners.
The AOA approached the High Court after the Uttar Pradesh government rejected its revision petition against the Noida Authority’s order.
What did the October order state
In its October 27, 2025, order, the state government stated that FAR approval was granted under the UP Industrial Area Development Act, 1976, placing it outside the scope of the UP Apartment (Promotion of Construction, Ownership and Maintenance) Act, 2010, and therefore held the AOA’s challenge as not maintainable.
Also Read: Noida: UP allows builder to expand Sec 107 realty project
On October 30, 2025, the Hindustan Times newspaper had reported that the Uttar Pradesh government’s rejection of a plea filed by buyers has allowed the realty firm Great Value Projects India Limited to expand and carry out fresh construction within its Sector 107 housing project.
The AOA had challenged the Noida authority’s orders of December 19, 2024, and June 11, 2025, alleging that the approval for additional floor area ratio, allowing extra construction, was granted illegally and without residents’ adequate consent.
The state government’s infrastructure and industrial development department has upheld the Authority’s decision to grant additional FAR to the developer, giving the builder the green signal to build additional towers on the vacant land parcel that was part of this realty project, the report said.
“The Uttar Pradesh government has rejected the objectives raised by homebuyers and allowed the realty firm to carry on with their development plans. We will take steps as per the rules in this regard in view of the state government directive,” Noida authority’s additional chief executive officer Vandana Tripathi had said.
In an order dated October 27, Alok Kumar, additional chief secretary, Industrial Development Department, dismissed the AOA’s revision petition, saying it was “not maintainable” under the UP Apartment Act, 2010.
The order clarified that the Authority’s approvals were issued in accordance with the provisions of the UP Industrial Area Development Act, 1976, and were made in accordance with due process, the report had said.
Homebuyers move Allahabad High Court against Noida Authority’s approval of a new tower
The AOA has argued before the Allahabad High Court that the additional FAR violates Section 5(3)(a) of the UP Apartment Act, which states that an apartment owner’s undivided share in common areas is a “permanent right” and cannot be altered without written consent from all owners.
“It is contended by the counsel for the petitioner that under Section 5(3)(a) of the U.P. Apartment (Promotion of Construction, Ownership and Maintenance) Act, 2010 read with rule 4 of the Rules of 2011 framed thereunder, the percentage of the undivided interest of each apartment owner in the common area and facilities shall have a permanent character, and shall not be altered without the written consent of all the apartment owners. Therefore, consent of the apartment owners, obtained by resolution in the meeting of the apartment owners by majority, will be necessary for purchasing additional FAR…,” it noted.
Also Read: Noida Authority’s co-developer policy for stalled real estate projects: All you need to know
“It is contended that while moving application for purchase of additional FAR from respondent no.4, the respondent no.6 did not have the consent of majority of homebuyers with them, therefore, the grant of additional FAR vide order dated 19.12.2024 is unsustainable. It is further argued that petitioner had filed their objection to the grant of additional purchase of FAR, which has not been dealt with while passing the order dated 19.12.2024,” the document noted.
On November 18, Justice Arun Kumar observed that the matter “requires consideration” and issued notices to all respondents, including the Noida Authority, the UP government, and the developer. The court has given three weeks for filing counter-affidavits and an additional week for the AOA to submit its response.
The developer’s response
Great Value Realty, in a statement, said that it affirmed that claims reported of any impropriety in the permissions for constructing additional towers at Great Value Sharanam, Sector 107, Noida are “unfounded and inaccurate.” All documents, consent records, and approvals submitted by us have been duly verified and authenticated by the Department of Industrial Development, Government of Uttar Pradesh, and the New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (NOIDA).
The official records clearly establish that 1,165 flat owners consented to the purchase of additional FAR in 2024, confirming an overwhelming majority support. The applicants challenging the approval represent a minority within the Apartment Owners Association, the developer stated.
The Noida Authority granted additional FAR only after following due process, including issuing public notices in national dailies, inviting objections, and evaluating all submissions. These steps were reaffirmed when the Uttar Pradesh Government dismissed the revision petition, upholding the Authority’s decision, it stated.
Furthermore, in the due diligence process pursued by the Government authorities, the AOA's core challenge was found to be legally improper. The AOA’s revision petition challenging the FAR approval was deemed "not maintainable" under the specific statute (UP Apartment Act, 2010) it was filed under, indicating that the developer followed the correct legal process, the company said.
“Great Value Realty continues to maintain full regulatory compliance across its portfolio, including securing RERA approval for ongoing projects and new tower. We hold deep respect for the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court and all statutory authorities. As the matter remains sub judice, we will refrain from further comment and place complete faith in the judicial process,” it said.
What is FAR, and the undivided share of existing residents
Floor Area Ratio (FAR) is the ratio of a building's total floor area to the size of the land it is built on. It's a zoning tool used by local governments to control development density and determine the maximum permissible built-up area on a plot.
Undivided share of land: When a homebuyer purchases an apartment, he is not just purchasing the enclosed unit; he is also acquiring a proportional share of the land on which the building stands. This is referred to as the undivided share (UDS) of the land. An apartment owner’s UDS represents his ownership stake in the project’s common areas, including the lift, lobby, garden, parking spaces, and other shared facilities.
According to advocate Venkat Rao, under the law, common areas and the land beneath a project are owned proportionately by all flat owners. For instance, if a tower with 100 flats is built on one acre, each homeowner has an undivided proportional share in that land. Once a homebuyer signs a builder-buyer agreement based on a sanctioned plan, the developer is required to inform them of any proposed changes and obtain their consent, especially if those changes affect green areas, increase the number of floors or towers, or alter the buyer’s proportionate share in land and common facilities. A project originally divided among 100 owners becomes fundamentally different if expanded to 200; the rights of each allottee effectively get halved, he explains.
If, at the time of RERA registration, a developer clearly earmarks land and specifies that rights apply only to a particular tower and the land directly beneath it, such changes may be permissible since they don’t infringe on buyers’ rights. However, additional FAR typically involves more construction, extra floors, more apartments, or even an entirely new tower, and this can directly impact the rights and entitlements of existing buyers, Rao of Intygart Law told HT Real Estate.
He stated that the courts have previously examined similar situations. The Supertech Twin Towers case is a notable example. The Emerald Court RWA approached the Allahabad High Court in 2012 after discovering that the developer had violated the Uttar Pradesh Apartment Owners Act, 2010.
In 2014, the Allahabad High Court held the towers illegal and ordered their demolition. Both the Noida Authority and Supertech challenged the verdict, but on August 31, 2021, the Supreme Court upheld the demolition order. The Court found that the towers violated building regulations and fire safety norms, and that the garden area had been removed without the consent of the flat owners, thereby contravening the UP Apartments Act, 2010.
The Supreme Court had then noted that the construction increased the number of flats from 650 to 1,500, thereby reducing each allottee’s undivided share in the common area. Although the demolition was ordered within three months, several delays pushed the final blast to August 28, 2022.
