Neharpar Sector 77 taking new shape

[rohit.mattoo]

Master road will completely benefit us only when we have sector roads. I don't understand how HUDA can exclude sector roads from road building project. In case HUDA will not build, then do you think even builder will build these roads. Who will take the possession of land for these roads and so on & so forth.
I request GFWA legal team to please put forth the sector roads matter before high court and get it added in the scope of work for HUDA.
In case it becomes the builders' responsibility then I am sure that it would add to problems for us. Builder would complete the facility & run away by without connecting road builders.
Builder responsibility is only upto the boundary of facility & rest lies with HUDA for all services which are covered under EDC

[dheerajjain]

dheeraj ji i have send u a link what do u think about that please share

Yogesh, I have gone through your link, please find your answer in GFWA exclusive section as this is also covered under legal case in High Court

[mikesab]

dheeraj ji i have send u a link what do u think about that please share

Yogesh, I have gone through your link, please find your answer in GFWA exclusive section as this is also covered under legal case in High Court

Mate, it is responsibility of the builder to build sector roads, same as what DLF did in Gurgaon, BPTP doing in Faridabad. It is the responsibility of RWAs to put pressure on builder to start building the connecting roads alongside master roads.

Unfortunately, except for SRS's RWA, I do not think any other societies' RWA is potent enough or can rise above their egos to do some actual welfare. Sad but True.....

[apoorv.prakash]

Court case for Parkland pride sector 77 with DD disposed


HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
  
  
  
   O R D E R
  
   19.03.2013
  
  
  
  Crl. M.A. No. 3547/2013 (u/S 482 Cr.P.C.) in Crl. M.C. No.13/2012
  
  
  
  Mr. Mohit Gupta, learned counsel for intervener- Devender Kumar
  Jain, who had sought his impleadment in this petition by application
  being Crl. M.A. No. 18504/2012, submits that since all disputes with BPTP
  Ltd. have been settled, he does not want to be impleaded in this case.
  Learned counsel submits that this application is also accompanied by
  affidavit of applicant ? Devender Kumar Jain and on his instructions,
  learned counsel seeks permission of the Court to withdraw Crl. M.A. No.
  18504/2012.
  
  In the light of above, this application is allowed and is
  accordingly disposed of.
  
  Crl.M.A.N.18504/2012 (u/S 482 Cr.P.C.) in Crl. M.C. No.13/2012
  
  
  
  
  
  In view of orders passed in Crl. M.A. No. 3547/2013, this
  application is dismissed as withdrawn.
  
  Crl. M.A. No. 18370/20123 (u/S 482 Cr.P.C.) in Crl. M.C. No.13/2012
  
  
  
  Mr. Shivam Garg, learned counsel for applicant- Sanjay Bakshi, who
  had sought implemented in this petition, submits that all disputes with
  petitioners have now been settled, as post dated cheques have been given
  by petitioner to the applicant herein, and subject to their encashment,
  learned counsel seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this
  application.
  
  Subject to encashment of aforementioned post date cheques, this
  application is dismissed as withdrawn.
  
  Crl. M.A. No. 12070/2012 in Crl. M.C. No.13/2012
  
  Crl. M.A. No. 12071/2012 in Crl. M.C. No. 31/2012
  
  Ms. Vidhi Gupta, Learned counsel for applicants, on instructions
  seeks permission of this Court to withdraw these applications, as it has
  now transpired that petitioner has already deposited a sum of
  `16.63crores with the Registrar General of this Court, with liberty to
  initiate proceedings against petitioner in accordance with the law, if
  need be.
  
  In light of the above, afore-captioned two applications are
  dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty as aforesaid.
  
  Crl. M.C. No.13/2012
  
  Crl. M.C. No. 31/2012
  
  
  
  Mr. Anil Sapra, learned senior counsel for respondent No.2/
  complainants in the afore-captioned two petitions, submits that Ms. Anju
  Goel and Mr. Suresh Goel, have also settled their dispute with petitioner
  and they have no objection to the quashing of FIR in question.
  
  Mr. Mohit Gupta, learned counsel for interveners Manish Anand,
  Adarsh Publication, Kamal Ahuja, Mr. Som Nath Munjal, Mr. Megh Shayam
  Aggarwal and Mr. Pramod Kumar Garg, submits that he has instructions to
  state that dispute of afore-named interveners has also been settled with
  petitioner.
  
  Mr. Sunil Sharma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for
  respondent-State seeks time to verify and file fresh Status Report within
  two weeks.
  
  Let it be so done.
  
  Renotify on 11th April, 2013.
  
  SUNIL GAUR, J
  
  
  
  MARCH 19, 2013

[s1joshi]

Hi Apoorv

Not sure if I missed older posts or context on the case, Can you please share some details on the case. Hope cases resulted in some good for investors fighting for cause.

[s1joshi]

Jayanta : Can you please move above two posts on a new thread with appropriate subject.

[naveenarichwal]

I think This issue has been discussed in court and and court had asked DTCP about this issue(Sector Road) in its proceedings and i think that DTCP was told to complete both master and sector road, although things are subjudice.

[miketest]

I think This issue has been discussed in court and and court had asked DTCP about this issue(Sector Road) in its proceedings and i think that DTCP was told to complete both master and sector road, although things are subjudice.

XEN said that sector roads will be done only after HUDA completes the land acquisition process.