Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Question No. 3:- Violation of Building Regulations We proceed to examine as to whether sanction dated 2.3.2012 in respect of Towers 16 and 17 (APEX & CEYANE) is as per Building Regulations 2010. The admitted facts between the parties is that the NOIDA Authority has allotted Plot No. 4, Sector 93-A NOIDA, in two parts, for development of Group Housing Society. On 20.6.2005, the NOIDA Authority approved the plan on the site Plot No. 4, Sector 93-A measuring 48263.00 sq meter.

The NOIDA Authority vide lease dated 21.6.2006 alloted additional area measuring 6556.51 sq meter which was part and parcel of Plot No. 4, Sector 93-A enhancing the area of the Plot to 54819.51. Building Regulations 2006 came into force on 16.12.2006 superseding the earlier Building Regulations. Respondent company submitted an amended/revised plan and proposed to built a shopping centre and a building, Ground + 11 storey (G + 11) on the additional leased plot. There was no amendment/revision in the earlier sanctioned map. The respondent/company again got the layout map amended/revised and Towers No. 16 and 17 (APEX & CEYANE) of 24 stories was proposed to be built on the additional leased out land instead of (G + 11) and shopping center (G + 1). On 21.7.2010 U.P. Apartment (Promotion of Construction, Ownership and Maintenance) Act, 2010 was enforced. The NOIDA Authorities framed Building Regulation, 2010 superseding the Building Regulation of 2006. The Building Regulation of 2010 came into force on 20.11.2010. The respondent-company again submitted an amended/revised plan and the heights of the Tower NO. 16-17 (APEX & CEYANE) were increased to 40 stories utilizing additional purchasable FAR 2.75, that is, raising the height to 121.5 meters. The additional F.A.R. was approved by NOIDA Authority vide letter dated 25.10.2011.

Examining the pleadings of the parties, on admitted facts, it transpires that the stand of the developer is totally divergent to the stand of the NOIDA Authorities. The contention of the respondent-company that the map was initially sanctioned and revised and modified under provisions of Building Regulations 2006, hence the Building Regulations of 2010 is not applicable and further since possession was already handed over to the members of the petitioner society way back in the year 2009, therefore, provisions of the Apartment Act, 2010 is not applicable, is not borne out from the record. The approval for purchase of additional FAR is of the year 2011 and sanction of layout map dated 2.3.2012 is for single project and imposes the condition of applicability of Apartment Act 2010 on the project.

Not only this, the respondent-company has also violated the clear space of 7.5 mtrs after providing for surface parking. The respondent-company in para 37 of their counter affidavit has stated that "That the contents of para 15 of the Writ Petition are wrong and denied. It is stated that no setback area has been converted into parking area. The parking of the vehicles are being allowed leaving aside the 6.00 m clear setback from the tower as per the sanction of the Completion Drawing dated 16.9.2009 by Noida Authority." Whereas the stand of the NOIDA Authority is that as per Government notification dated 4.12.2010 the provisions of parking is allowed only after leaving clear space of 7.50 metre. It is evident, on admitted facts, that the respondent company in collusion with the NOIDA Authority have managed to obtain sanction of layout map in violation of mandatory spaces between building blocks and clear space, but for these violation the additional FAR purchased by the respondent company in 2011, could not have been executed on the ground/site. The stand of both the respondents that constructions are being carried out, strictly as per sanction is untenable, as the sanction itself grossly violates the Building Regulations.

Learned counsel for the respondent-company finally made an attempt to argue that the phrase "building blocks" is not defined under the bye-laws and according to the learned Senior Advocate building blocks would mean the entire building on plot no. 4 of Sector 93-A NOIDA. The said argument is far fetched and against the provisions of the Building Regulations of 2006 as well as 2010. Building Block means group of buildings on the plot/site. The sanctioned maps clearly shows that the respondent-company has got the layout approved consisting of separate blocks. The nomenclature of the blocks was subsequently changed by the respondent-company, in each successive plans and finally the buildings were numbered as Towers (1 to 17). The maps sanctioned clearly shows that the buildings in dispute Aster II (Tower 1) and Apex & Ceyane (Towers 16 and 17) are separate building blocks. The argument has been advanced without there being any foundation in the pleadings. Without pleadings argument cannot be advanced.