Nefarious complicity of NOIDA with Supertech Ltd in violation of the law allowed the twin 40-storey towers in Emerald Court project, which would have blocked the sunlight and fresh air for the residents, the Supreme Court said on Tuesday while ordering that the structures built so far be demolished.

Illegal construction has to be dealt with strictly to ensure compliance with the rule of law, the apex court said.

NOIDA made no effort to ensure compliance of the Uttar Pradesh Apartments Act 2010, as a result of which the rights of the flat purchasers have been brazenly violated, it said.

This cannot point to any conclusion, other than the collusion between NOIDA and the appellant to avoid complying with the provisions of the applicable statutes and regulations for monetary gain, at the cost of the rights of the flat purchasers, said a bench of Justices D Y Chandrachud and M R Shah, upholding the Allahabad High Court verdict.

The order passed by the High Court for the demolition of Apex and Ceyane (T-16 and T-17) does not warrant interference and the direction for demolition issued by the High Court is affirmed, it said.

The top court directed that the work of demolition shall be carried out within three months from the date of this judgment.

"The record of this case is replete with instances which highlight the collusion between the officers of NOIDA with the appellant and its management. The case has revealed a nefarious complicity of the planning authority in the violation by the developer of the provisions of law," the bench said.

The high court has dealt with the collusion between the officials of NOIDA and the appellant (Supertech Ltd), it said.

"This is writ large from the facts as they have emerged before this Court as well. The High Court has in these circumstances correctly come to the conclusion that there was collusion between the developer and the planning authority , the bench said.

It added that the rampant increase in unauthorized constructions across urban areas, particularly in metropolitan cities where soaring values of land place a premium on dubious dealings has been noticed in several decisions of this Court.

This state of affairs has often come to pass in no small a measure because of the collusion between developers and planning authorities, the bench said, adding that from commencement to completion, the process of construction by developers is regulated within the framework of law.

It pointed out that the regulatory framework encompasses all stages of construction, including allocation of land, sanctioning of the plan for construction, regulation of the structural integrity of the structures under construction, obtaining clearances from different departments (fire, garden, sewage, etc.), and the issuance of occupation and completion certificates.

While the availability of housing stock, especially in metropolitan cities, is necessary to accommodate the constant influx of people, it has to be balanced with two crucial considerations -- the protection of the environment and the well-being and safety of those who occupy these constructions, it said.

The top court said the regulation of the entire process is intended to ensure that constructions which will have a severe negative environmental impact are not sanctioned.

Hence, when these regulations are brazenly violated by developers, more often than not with the connivance of regulatory authorities, it strikes at the very core of urban planning, thereby directly resulting in an increased harm to the environment and a dilution of safety standards, the bench said, adding, Hence, illegal construction has to be dealt with strictly to ensure compliance with the rule of law .

It said that the judgments of this Court spanning the last four decades emphasize the duty of planning bodies, while sanctioning building plans and enforcing building regulations and bye-laws to conform to the norms by which they are governed.

A breach by the planning authority of its obligation to ensure compliance with building regulations is actionable at the instance of residents whose rights are infringed by the violation of law, it said.

The bench, in its 140-page verdict said that their quality of life is directly affected by the failure of the planning authority to enforce compliance and lauded the efforts of home buyers in pursuing the litigation for their rights.

Unfortunately, the diverse and unseen group of flat buyers suffers the impact of the unholy nexus between builders and planners. Their quality of life is affected the most. Yet, confronted with the economic might of developers and the might of legal authority wielded by planning bodies, the few who raise their voices have to pursue a long and expensive battle for rights with little certainty of outcomes, the bench said.

It said as this case demonstrates, they are denied access to information and are victims of misinformation. Hence, the law must step in to protect their legitimate concerns .

The top court said that the sanction given by NOIDA on November 26, 2009 and March 2, 2012 for the construction of T-16 (Apex tower) and T-17 (Ceyane tower) is violative of the minimum distance requirement under the Noida Building Regulations of 2006, 2010 and National Building Code of 2005.

The appellant (Supertech Ltd) has raised false pleas and attempted to mislead this Court, while the officials of NOIDA have not acted bona fide in the discharge of their duties, the bench said.