The Supreme Court on Tuesday ordered the demolition of 850 flats in two towers of 40 floors each in Noida for not maintaining the requisite distance between buildings and asked the realtor, Supertech, to pay Rs 2 crore as compensation to the local residents’ welfare association.
“The purpose of stipulating a minimum distance is a matter of public interest in planned development. The residents who occupy constructed areas in a housing project are entitled to ventilation, light and air and adherence to fire safety norms,” said Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, who authored the judgment.
Supertech had constructed 17 towers, out of which the two have been ordered to be demolished within three months at the developer’s cost. Instead of the minimum required distance of 35.6 metres from Tower 1, only 9 metres separated Tower 1 from Tower 16 and Tower 17.
These two towers (T-16 and T-17), which encroached on the open area including the garden of Tower 1, will have to be demolished.
The court ordered the prosecution of the promoters and the conniving officials of Noida (the New Okhla Industrial Development Authority) on the fringes of the capital. Noida falls in Uttar Pradesh but for all practical purposes, it is an extension of Delhi.
Supertech will have to refund all existing purchasers of flats in T-16 and T-17 with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum payable with effect from the date of the respective deposits until the date of refund, the court said.
The stipulated minimum distance addresses several concerns such as “safeguarding the privacy of the occupants and their enjoyment of basic civic amenities, including access to well-ventilated areas where air and light are not blocked by the presence of close towering constructions”, the court added.
“Access to these amenities is becoming a luxury instead of a necessity. The prescription of a minimum distance also has a bearing on fire safety. In the event of a fire, there is a danger that the flames would rapidly spread from one structure to the adjoining ones. Moreover, the presence of structures in close proximity poses serious hurdles to fire-fighting machinery which has to be deployed by the civic body.
“If a developer is left with the unbridled discretion to define the content of the expression ‘building block’, this will defeat the purpose of prescribing minimum distances, leaving the health, safety and quality of life of flat buyers at the mercy of developers,” the court said.
The bench issued the directives while dismissing an appeal filed by Supertech challenging a 2014 judgment of a division bench of Allahabad High Court that directed the demolition of the illegal structures.
The high court had passed the order while allowing an appeal filed by the Emerald Court Owner Residents’ Welfare Association seeking action against the authorities and the builder for the violations.
On Tuesday, the Supreme Court bench said: “The appellant (Supertech) has stooped to the point of producing a fabricated sanctioned plan.”
The illegal construction of T-16 and T-17 has been achieved through acts of collusion between officials in Noida and the appellant and its management, the bench added.
The apex court said the consent of the individual flat owners of the original 15 towers, individually or through the RWA, was a necessary requirement under the Uttar Pradesh Apartments Act before T-16 and T-17 could have been constructed since they necessarily reduced the undivided interest of the individual flat owners in the common area by adding new flats and increasing the number from 650 to 1,500 flats.
“In order to ensure that the work of demolition is carried out in a safe manner…, Noida shall consult its own experts and experts from the Central Building Research Institute (CBRI), Roorkee,” the court said.
The demolition shall be carried out under the overall supervision of the CBRI or another expert agency nominated by Noida if the central institute is unable to involve itself, the bench said.
The cost of the demolition and all incidental expenses, including the fees for the experts, shall be borne by the appellant, the bench added.