SUPERTECH LIMITED versus EMERALD COURT OWNER RESIDENT WELFARE ASSOCIATION & ORS.

Citation: [2021] 13 S.C.R. 976 · Decided: 31-08-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
976
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 13 S.C.R.
SUPERTECH LIMITED
v.
EMERALD COURT OWNER RESIDENT WELFARE
ASSOCIATION & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 5041 of 2021)
AUGUST 31, 2021
[DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD AND
M. R. SHAH, JJ.]
National Building Regulations, 2006 – Regulation 33.2.3 –
National Building Code 2005 – UP Apartment Act 2010 – ss. 4(1),
4(4), 5 – Adherence to minimum distance requirement between
buildings – Collusion and illegal construction – Demolition of two
towers – NOIDA allotted to the appellant a plot of land for the
development of a group housing society and sanctioned the building
plan for the construction of fourteen towers, each with ground and
nine floors (G+9) – On 05.12.2006, the New Okhla Industrial
Development Area Building Regulations and Directions (NBR 2006)
were notified – On 29.12.2006, NOIDA sanctioned the first revised
plan by which additional buildings were also sanctioned and two
additional floors were envisaged in addition to already sanctioned
(G+9) – Additional buildings were sanctioned, namely (i) Tower-15
(G+11), (ii) Tower-16 (G+11) and (iii) a shopping complex – In the
second revised plan, the earlier T-16 (G+11) was replaced with a
T-16 (G+24) and similarly, the shopping complex was replaced with
T-17 (G+24) – T-16 and T-17 would each be of a height of 73 mtrs
and according to the plan, T-17 was to be at a distance of 9 mtrs.
from T-1 – In the third revised plan, the height of T-16 and T-17 was
permitted to be raised from 24 floors to 40 floors (i.e., G+40),
resulting in the building’s height being 121 mtrs. –  The first
respondent addressed a communication to NOIDA complaining of
violations – Thereafter, first respondent filed a writ petition in the
High Court and sought quashing of revised plan of disputed towers
and also prayed that the illegal structure be demolished – The High
Court allowed the writ petition and directed the demolition of T-16
and T-17, with the expenses of the demolition being borne by the
appellant and to refund the consideration received from flat
purchasers who had booked apartments – It further directed the
[2021] 13 S.C.R.976
976
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
977
Competent Authority to grant sanction for the prosecution of NOIDA’s
officials – On appeal, held: The National Building Construction
Corporation Limited (NBCC) concluded that the said two towers
are not compliant with Regulation 24.2.1.6 of the NBR 2010 – The
purpose of stipulating a minimum distance between buildings 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 – As
per Regulation 33.2.3 of the NBR 2006, the minimum distance
between T-17 and T-1, should be half of the height of the tallest
building, that is, half of the height of T-17 which is 36.5 mtrs – It is
evident from the record that the distance between T-1 and T-17 is 9
mtrs. only, thus, clearly the second revised plan was violative of the
NBR 2006 –  In the third revised plan the height of T-16 and T-17
was increased to 121 mtrs. – In accordance with Regulation 24.2.1.6
of NBR 2010, the spacing between a building of height 121 mtrs.
and another building would be 16 mtrs. however, the distance
between disputed towers was 9 mtrs. – Consequently, the third
revised plan was in violation of NBR 2010 – The construction of
T-16 and T-17 in accordance with the second revised plan and the
third revised plan reduced the value of the undivided interest held
by each individual flat owner in the common areas and facilities,
thereby violating s.5 of the UP 1975 Act and s.5 of the UP Apartments
Act 2010, since the flat owners’ consent was not sought – Further,
the third revised plan encroached upon the garden area in front of
T-1, thereby resiling from the representation that was made to the
flat owners at the time when they purchased the apartments in T-1,
without their consent – Therefore, it constituted a violation of s.4(1)
r/w. the proviso to s.4(4) of the UP Apartments Act 2010 – The case
has revealed a nefarious complicity of the planning authority in the
violation by the developer of the provisions of law – NOIDA made
no effort to ensure compliance of the UP Apartments Act 2010, as a
result of which the rights of the flat purchasers was brazenly violated
– The illegal construction of T-16 and T-17 was achieved through
acts of collusion between the officers of NOIDA and the appellant
and its m

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.