The Supreme Court of India delivered a sharp rebuke on Monday. It declared transactions between two major real estate companies as dubious. The court specifically named Jaiprakash Associates and Gaursons Mega Projects. It also made a serious allegation against officials of the Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority.
Court Finds Officials 'Hand in Glove'
The bench stated that YEIDA officials were "hand in glove" in the entire matter. This strong phrase indicates the court believes there was collusion. The observation came during a hearing of YEIDA's own plea. The authority was challenging an order from the Allahabad High Court.
The Core of the Dispute: A Rs 114 Crore Fee
The High Court had annulled YEIDA's demand for a transfer fee. The amount was a substantial Rs 114 crore. This fee was related to the transfer of a large parcel of land. The plot measured 72,000 square meters.
The land was originally transferred by Jaiprakash Associates Limited. JAL had received this land from Jaypee Infratech Limited. JIL was the original lessee from YEIDA. JAL then transferred its leasehold interest to Gaursons Mega Projects.
Solicitor General Outlines the Chain
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appeared for YEIDA. Senior Advocate Ranjit Kumar also represented the authority. They explained the complex chain of sub-leases to the court.
"The demand was raised against GMP," they said. "GMP acquired leasehold interest through a chain of sub-leases." The first link was JAL, a sub-lessee of JIL. JIL remained the original lessee from YEIDA.
Rapid Transfers and Price Hikes Raise Eyebrows
The Solicitor General presented a key timeline to the court. He revealed that the land transfers happened incredibly fast. The transactions were completed within a mere two-day period.
Furthermore, the price of the land showed a suspicious jump. For the second transfer in the chain, the price was Rs 318 crore. Shortly after, for the third transfer, the price increased to Rs 410 crore. This significant hike of nearly Rs 100 crore occurred in August 2023.
The rapid succession of deals and the sharp price increase contributed to the court's finding. These factors made the transactions appear dubious and lacking transparency. The Supreme Court's strong remarks put the spotlight on corporate dealings and regulatory oversight in the real estate sector.
