Why did the Supreme court direct the demolition of Supertech towers?

- Authored by Shivani Kharai

‘The law must step in to protect legitimate concerns of residents whose quality of life is directly affected by the failure of the planning authority to enforce compliance of law.’[1]

INTRODUCTION

Due to rapid urbanisation in India, construction activities have exploded in recent years to keep up with demand. But not all of these constructions have complied to existing laws, resulting in unfavourable effects on governance systems, the environment, transportation services, people's health and overall citizen well-being, as well. Illegal constructions have resulted in the loss of property in extreme situations.

Apparently, there’s a recent case on illegal construction known as Noida Supertech Twin Tower case (Supertech Limited v. Emerald Court) which resulted in the demolition of twin towers in Noida.

Let’s know the case in detail.

What exactly is Noida Supertech Twin Tower case?

To develop a housing society in the year 2004 by the name of Emerald Court, NOIDA (New Okhla Industrial Development Authority) allocated an area of land to Supertech Limited (the appellant). As a result of NOIDA's 2012 approval of three revised plans for this project, the height of Tower 16 and 17 was increased from 24 to 40 floors. It was in June of that year when Resident Welfare Association (respondent) filed an official complaint with NOIDA, alleging that the appellants had violated regulations and misrepresented facts to potential purchasers. As a result, they sought to revoke the plans for Towers 16 and 17. On hearing nothing, they filed a petition under article 226 in the Allahabad High Court for demolition of illegal constructions, which was granted (T-16 and 17). UP Industrial Area Development Act 1976 and UP Apartments Act 2010 were violated - according to the High Court and was held illegal. The court ordered the twin 40-story towers 16 & 17 to be demolished and ordered the appellants to cover the costs. Also, the appellant was ordered by the court to refund the money received as consideration from the flat purchasers at a rate of 12 percent.

According to Article 136, the High Court's decision was challenged by the aggrieved appellant in front of the Supreme Court. Supertech had appealed the Allahabad High Court's April 2014 ruling to the Supreme Court of India, but it was denied. It also appointed the National Buildings Construction Corporation Limited as an expert agency to provide a fair assessment of the case.

Issue:

Whether NOIDA's approval of the T-16 and T-17 construction violates the distance requirements under statutory regulations?

Arguments:

1. To the contrary, the counsel for the appellant contended that T-16 and T-17 were constructed without violating the distance rule under NBR, 2010. The project did not violate the UP Apartments Act of 2010 because it was approved before the Act came into effect. As a result, he asked the court to overturn the demolition order because

§ The construction was approved by the appropriate authorities.,

§ A total of 600 people has reserved an apartment.

§ Nearly 30 floors have been built.

The counsel for the Resident Welfare Association contended that this sanction was obtained illegally by appellant. According to the report of the expert agency, the appellant did not adhere to the minimum distance criteria required by the Regulations and was therefore in violation of the law. He also pointed out that the appellant failed to obtain the consent of the flat owners before altering the sanction plan, which they were under obligation to obtain as per the UP Apartments Act, 2010. He finally alleged that the appellant and NOIDA have connived to circumvent the building regulations.[2]

Legal Provisions:

• Article 226 under Indian Constitution gives the High Court the power to issue writs.

• Special Leave Petition under Article 136 of the Indian Constitution.

• To initiate proceedings or prosecution against a person for an offence under the Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act, Section 49, the Vice-Chairman must give his consent.

Judgment by Allahabad High Court:

1. The third respondent, Okhla Industrial Development Authority, demolished Towers 16 and 17 in Emerald Court, located on Plot No. 4, Sector 93A in NOIDA.

2. The appellant is responsible for cost of demolition and removal, if the appellant fails to do so, NOIDA will recover them as unpaid land revenue;

3. The sanction for prosecution under Section 49 of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Development Act 1973, as incorporated by Section 12 of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Area Development Act 1976, will be granted to prosecute officials from the appellant as well as officials from NOIDA who may have violated UPIAD Act, 1976 or Uttar Pradesh Apartment (Promotion of Construction, Ownership & Maintenance), 2010.

4. The purchasers of T-16 and T-17 apartments will receive a refund of their deposits, plus a fourteen percent annual interest rate.

Updated highlights:

After determining that Supertech had violated regulations governing the distance between buildings and fire safety, the Supreme Court issued these directives.

"These towers were built through collusion between New Okhla Industrial Development Authority and the Supertech group," the court ruled. In this way, the court gave the green light to prosecute them.

Supreme Court Verdict:

Justices Madan Lokur and Kurian Joseph were on the Supreme Court bench that stayed the demolition of two buildings owned by a Noida developer. Supreme Court upheld the ruling by the Allahabad High Court. Supertech's Emerald Court project, which includes Apex and Ceyane towers, was ordered to be demolished within three months by the Supreme Court.

Directions by Supreme Court:

The Supreme Court's directives are summarised below:

1. Emerald Court's Tower 16 and Tower 17 are to be demolished in accordance with the High Court's demolition order; The work of demolition shall be carried out within a period of three months from the date of the instant judgment;

2. Under the supervision of NOIDA officials, Supertech will perform the demolition work at its own expense. NOIDA shall consult its own experts and experts from the Central Building Research Institute, Roorkee ("CBRI") in order to ensure that demolition work is carried out safely;

3. Under the supervision of CBRI, all demolition work shall be carried out in accordance with the law. In the scenario that If CBRI is unable to do so, NOIDA will nominate another expert agency;

4. Supertech shall bear the cost of demolition and all incidental expenses, including expert fees;

5. All existing flat purchasers in Tower 16 and Tower 17 other than those to whom refunds have already been made, shall be refunded within two months of their deposits, together with interest at the rate of 12 percent per annum, payable from the date of the respective deposits until the date of refund in terms specified in this judgement;

6. Supertech shall pay to the RWA of Emerald Court costs of Rs 2 crore shall be paid by Supertech within one month of receiving the judgement.

The Court Observed: “The appellant 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 appellant has stooped to the point of producing a fabricated sanctioned plan.”[3]

The bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and MR Shah observed ‘that there was collusion between NOIDA officers and the builders in facilitating the in violation of norms and the complicity of the NOIDA authorities was "writ large" in the present case.’[4]

CONCLUSION

As a result of the skyrocketing price of real estate, the Supreme Court has noted an increase in illegal constructions, particularly in urban areas. There are a number of builders who are conspiring with building officials to violate regulations. To deter similar crimes in the future, it is imperative to take strict action against illegal constructions.

After ruling in K. Ramadas Shenoy V. Chief Officer, the court stated that unregulated construction interferes with a resident's ability to enjoy his or her property. In this case, it is the responsibility of the competent authority to ensure that such illegal constructions do not negatively impact the area.

References:

1. Tejaswi Pandit, Demolition illegal twin tower, SCC Online, (September 1, 2021), https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/tag/demolition-illegal-twin-towers/

2. Tushar Bansode, Supertech Limited Vs Emerald Court Owner Resident Welfare Association & Ors, LAWYERSCLUBINDIA, (02 September, 2021)

3. Tejaswi Pandit, Demolition illegal twin tower, SCC Online, (September 1, 2021), https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/tag/demolition-illegal-twin-towers/

4. Shruti Kakkar, Collusion Between NOIDA Officers & Builders, Live Law, (31 August, 2021), https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/supreme-court-demolition-of-illegal-twin-towers-of-supertech-within-3-months-noida-officers-builders-180601