Supertech Limited v. Emerald Court Owner Resident Welfare Association & Ors.
Background
Builder Supertech constructed 15 residential towers (the "Emerald Court" project) in Noida under an approved plan that included open garden space in front of Tower 1. Years later, Supertech obtained revised sanctions from the Noida Authority to construct two additional towers, Apex and Ceyane (T-16 and T-17), on that very garden space, without the consent of the existing flat owners. The Residents' Welfare Association (RWA) challenged this before the Allahabad High Court, which ordered the two new towers demolished for violating minimum-distance building norms and fire-safety regulations. Supertech and some individual flat buyers appealed to the Supreme Court.
Decision Breakdown
After a detailed, multi-year examination of building plans, fire-safety norms, and correspondence, the Supreme Court found that the construction of T-16 and T-17 violated mandatory minimum-distance requirements between buildings under the National Building Code and local byelaws, and that Supertech had advanced false arguments (that the towers formed a single "block" with Tower 1, and that the facing sides were "dead ends") to get around this, which were contradicted by the record. The Court also held that the builder needed, and never obtained, the consent of the existing flat owners before eliminating the promised garden area and nearly doubling the number of flats in the project, as required under UP apartment ownership law. The Court further found evidence of collusion between Noida Authority officials and the builder in approving the illegal plan. It upheld the demolition order, directing the towers be demolished within three months at the builder's own cost under the supervision of the Central Building Research Institute, with full refunds plus 12% annual interest to affected homebuyers and costs of Rs. 2 crore to the RWA.
Lesson Learnt
Builders cannot unilaterally revise an approved building plan to add new towers at the cost of existing residents' promised open spaces and safety margins, doing so without the flat owners' consent, and in violation of building-distance and fire-safety norms, can result in court-ordered demolition of the illegal structure even years after construction, with the builder bearing the full cost.