Earlier this week, a Supreme Court bench, while hearing the Supertech Twin Towers case, reserved its verdict on the appeals by Supertech and the Noida Authority against the Allahabad High Court verdict on April 11, 2014, that had ordered their demolition.
As many as 633 people had booked the flats, of whom 248 have taken refunds and 133 shifted to Supertech’s other housing projects. But 252 buyers still remain invested in the hope of a favourable order from the court.
A bench of Justices D Y Chandrachud and M R Shah reserved orders after extensively hearing all sides. Here’s a look at what has transpired so far.
What has happened so far?
2014 High Court order:
On April 11, 2014. the Allahabad High Court had declared that the two towers constructed in Sector 93-A, Noida, by Supertech as part of the Supertech Emerald Court Complex, as “illegal” and ordered their demolition "within a period of four months."
The court had ordered the demolition as the two towers were built too close to each other, and violated the Noida Building Regulations of 2010. This regulation requires a minimum distance of 16 metres. The court also observed that the developer had not taken the consent of homebuyers as required under the Uttar Pradesh Apartment Owners Act, 2010.
The court ordered that the money be refunded to all those who had invested in the two towers “with 14 per cent interest compounded annually”.
The two towers, Apex and Ceyane of Emerald Court Project of Supertech, together have 915 apartments and 21 shops. Of these, initially, 633 flats were booked.
Soon after the court order, the Noida Authority sealed the two 40-storey towers, bringing construction to a halt.
Emerald Court Owners Residents Welfare Association members had filed a petition in the High Court and alleged that the approval and construction of the two towers was “in complete violation of the Uttar Pradesh Apartment (Promotion of Construction, Ownership and Maintenance) Act”.
The petitioners had claimed that the Noida Authority had permitted raising the height of the two towers, which were earlier supposed to have only 24 floors each, “without maintaining the mandatory distance of 16 metres from an adjoining building block, making it unsafe, apart from blocking air and light”.
The Supreme Court hearing
The real-estate firm had moved the Supreme Court, challenging the Allahabad High Court order to demolish the two towers.
The company has claimed that the towers were constructed as per the approved building plans and there was no violation of any kind.
Several home buyers, subsequently, moved the top court, seeking refund from the company or direction for timely completion of their homes by the company.
A Supreme Court bench, comprising justices Dipak Misra and AM Khanwilkar, on March 27, 2017, had also said that if the two 40-storey residential buildings of Supertech’s Emerald Towers in Noida were constructed without proper sanction, they would be demolished. The towers have 857 apartments, of which about 600 have already been sold.
SC pulls up Noida Authority
On August 4, the top court pulled up the NOIDA Authority for failing to provide a sanctioned plan to Supertech's Emerald Court project homebuyers saying, “you (the authority) are reeking with corruption right from your eyes and nose”.
The SC bench also asked all parties to file their written submission by August 9 and reserved its order on whether the additional towers built by the company are illegal and need to be demolished.
The bench said that when homebuyers had asked for the plan, the authority wrote to the developer on whether to share it, and refused to share the plan at the developer’s behest. “This is a shocking exercise of power. You (NOIDA) are not only in league but in cahoots with Supertech,” the bench said.
“It was only after the High Court expressly directed you to give the plan that you had given them. You are reeking with corruption from eyes, nose and on the face of it,” the bench said.
You cannot take a private stand for any promoter: SC to Noida Authority
The SC reprimanded the Authority, saying that being a regulatory urban planning authority, it should take a neutral stand “instead of defending the acts of Supertech. You cannot take a private stand for any promoter,” the bench told advocate Ravindra Kumar, appearing for NOIDA.
The court further pointed out that the authority failed to take action when a complaint was filed against the company. “You are making that submission which should be made by Vikas Singh (Supertech lawyer). It is very unfortunate. It is a business for developers, but it is not your business.”
The developer’s attorney also drew the flak from the court when he tried to justify the construction of the towers.
The bench asked the Authority as to why it allowed a 40-storey tower to come up in the green area. Kumar said it was not a green land as alleged by home buyers, as a concrete structure was shown in the 2006 sanctioned plan where these towers have come up.
Advocate Ravindra Kumar, appearing for Noida Authority, had told the top court that all the plans of the housing society, including one original and three revised ones, were approved as per existing laws.
Builder’s stance
On the NBCC inspection report, which had said that the twin towers defied the distance criteria between the two buildings, the lawyer representing the builder, said that the NBCC inspection report was prepared after discussion with homebuyers and Supertech and the NOIDA Authority were not involved in the meeting.
Senior advocate Vikas Singh, appearing for Supertech, also defended the construction of the towers and said that there was no illegality in it.
Singh has also said that the Emerald Court Owners Residents Welfare Association, which has filed the case before the High Court, was not even in existence when the plan was sanctioned and construction had begun.
“Our plan was sanctioned in 2009, and, thereafter, construction began. The RWA came into existence in 2013. Then how can I get its consent as required by law before construction began,” he asked the court, adding that the builder cannot knock at the door of each and every flat buyer and seek consent.
On the minimum distance criteria, Singh had argued that between the 40-storey Tower 17 and 11- storey Tower one, there is a distance of 9.88 metres, which is around 32 feet, enough to allow a fire brigade to move.
The National Building Code prescribes a 9-metre distance between two buildings. This is being followed by the Delhi Development Authority. Many states have a minimum distance criteria of 9-16 metres.
“We have followed the minimum distance criteria, followed the fire safety norms and all other parameters. There was no illegality as canvassed by the home buyers,” he had said.
At the hearing on August 3, the SC had told Singh that the builder is palpably wrong as the towers were constructed by encroaching upon the green common area of the housing society.
Arguments of home buyers
The RWA, represented by senior advocate Jayant Bhushan, told the apex court on August 3 that Supertech has flouted the building safety norms and distance criteria, while constructing the twin towers by encroaching upon the garden area, and, thereby, blocking the view, air and sunshine.
The builder has constructed the towers by encroaching upon the common green area meant for the residents, without their consent, he had argued.
“They (builder) have shown us something in the brochure and constructed something else…The builder is now claiming it was part of the original plan itself. This is completely wrong. They hid information from us,” he said.
Bhushan said that even NBCC has found that the new buildings fail to meet the 16-metre distance criteria and there is no dead-end site, having no doors or windows or a path, which would have reduced the distance between two buildings as per by-laws.
If there is a garden, you cannot make a building there. You cannot cut the share of the common area without the consent of flat owners, he said.
Bhushan also said that construction was allowed despite the objection raised by the chief fire officer who had said that building additional towers would reduce the distance between buildings which would be in violation of fire safety norms.
The refund issue
During the hearing, advocate Gaurav Agrawal, appointed as amicus curiae in the matter, pointed out that many homebuyers, who have booked flats in the new twin towers, were refunded the payment while many have chosen to wait.
He said that if this court upholds the existence of these twin towers, the court will have to look into the problems faced by residents of Tower-1 and Tower-2, around 88 families, who are residing there.
Agrawal suggested that if the court upholds the Allahabad High Court order directing the demolition of both the towers, it has to be done by a specialised agency as many residential towers are in close proximity.
He referred to the demolition of buildings in Maradu in Kerala, where people had to be evacuated and building demolished using explosives.
“The possibility of the impact on residential towers due to the controlled explosion cannot be ruled out as all these buildings are connected with a common basement,” Agrawal said.
He has also suggested that if the court decides that the twin buildings are in violation of norms, it will be better that the builder is asked to pay double the compensation to residents of Tower-1 and Tower-2, so that they can purchase a flat nearby.
The bench said that it cannot force the homebuyers to leave, to which the amicus curiae said that it has to be with consent.
Discover the latest Business News, Sensex, and Nifty updates. Obtain Personal Finance insights, tax queries, and expert opinions on Moneycontrol or download the Moneycontrol App to stay updated!
Find the best of Al News in one place, specially curated for you every weekend.
Stay on top of the latest tech trends and biggest startup news.
