The availability of housing must be balanced with environmental protection and the well-being and safety of passengers, the Supreme Court noted in its Supertech twin demolition order, in which it ruled that a common area of land for the projects completed by the construction of Apex and Cheyane. A panel of judges DY Chandrachud and Mr Shah ordered the demolition of the twin towers within three months at the expense of the builder. “The control of the entire system is intended to ensure that construction that will have the greatest impact on the environment is not permitted. Thus, when these regulations are brutally violated by developers, they are often in stark contrast to those of regulatory authorities, hitting the center of urban planning, thus leading directly to increased environmental damage and reduced safety standards. Therefore, illegal construction must be dealt with severely to ensure compliance, ”said the 140-page order. This is not the first time that the Supreme Court has ordered the demolition of residential buildings in defiance of environmental practices. It ordered the demolition of four buildings in Maradu in Kochi after builders violated coastal zoning laws. It also ordered the demolition of houses in Kant Enclavein 2018. Also read : Home buyers unhappy, want states to cancel project deadline extension Legal experts say that although orders for demolition are not new, the demolition of the 40-story tower will be a barrier. The Maradu case The demolition of Maradu was ordered in violation of the requirements of the Coastal Management Act, and Supertech was found to be in breach of the provisions of the UP Apartment Act. In both cases, the high court refused to perform the unauthorized construction, giving a clear message to the builders that the courts were not inclined to use their equal powers to perform non-compliant construction work. These judgments make it clear that in addition to demolition, there will be financial consequences / penalties if construction violates RWA's building regulations, legal experts say. Legal experts say that this decision will ensure that no builder is negligent or will take shortcuts when it comes to building, safety, and environmental standards. The fact that the court ordered the demolition of the entire building indicates that it will not tolerate any deviation from the building plans or what the builder promised to the buyer. This ruling is a stern warning to all builders that if they take environmental issues or issues related to compromise on the quality of consumer health due to FAR violations and standards of moderation a long arm of the law will find them and the courts will find them. they can be prevented from taking drastic measures that include retrenchment and criminal activity if necessary. builders that if they take environmental issues or issues related to compromise on the quality of consumer health as a result of violations of FAR and minimum standards the long arm of the law will find them and courts will not be deterred from taking drastic measures including demolition of buildings and criminals if necessary. Also read : Taliban pledge safety to protect humanitarian workers : UN official"I believe the majority of developers would have ignored this decision and made a mistake, at least going forward," Vaibhav Gaggar, a lawyer, in the Supreme Court of India. The Supreme Court on August 31 ordered the demolition of 40-story towers in the Emerald Court project of Supertech Ltd in Noida in violation of building codes. In May 2019, the High Court ordered the removal of all buildings constructed in violation of the Coastal Regulatory Zone Regulations in the restricted area of the CRZ Sector in Maradu Municipality in the Ernakulam district of Kerala. "While the facts of the two cases are different, the judgments clearly show that the Supreme Court has taken a strong view of uncontrolled buildings by keeping in mind their negative effects on the environment and the right to enjoy property by persons living in residential areas," said Parliament Srivignesh These judgments are difficult lessons, but they are also eye-opening, both for builders and buyers, who must also consider whether the building plans have been breached or if the necessary development rules and regulations have been violated, he said. Chetan Agarwal, an environmental analyst, told that if there were any fundamental violations, the courts should allow the matter to be heard more quickly and resolved rather than the builder being allowed to continue building depending on the outcome of the case. The story of Kant Enclave In 2018, the Supreme Court ordered the demolition of houses in Kant Enclave to address illegal construction in Aravalis, in accordance with the provisions of the Punjab Land Preservation Act (PLPA), 1900. "Kant Enclave is a forest or forest land or it needs to be treated as a forest or forest land," the high court said and ordered the Haryana government to demolish the unauthorized buildings built in the area. The high court also ordered the authorities to pay $ 5 to rehabilitate the damaged area and to compensate the affected landlords.Also read : Zydus Cadila gets USFDA approval for diabetes drugIn 2019, 42 such incidents were demolished in Kant Enclave. “Demolition orders such as the Supertech and Kant Enclave twin towers serve as a barrier to the developers as the demolition and fines were imposed. In both cases the high court order focuses on consumer safety and environmental protection, ”said Piyush Singh, a colleague of PSP Legal, Advocates and Solicitors, adding that there should be a guarantee that instead of destroying towers, they could be used in other ways.
Rahul Chaudhary, a founding member and head of the Litigation Division at the Legal Initiative for Forest and Environment (LIFE) told that demolition orders following environmental violations were nothing new.
“In all cases, the sanctions have been revoked because the violation will not be remedied. The distance between the two towers cannot be repaired and the only solution is probably to demolish them, ”he said.
“If the builder does not hand over the waste management centers, the court may order them to install them but in this case there is nothing they can do. He asks.
He explains that in 2016, the National Green Tribunal had issued a notice to the developer of Gurgaon, the Department of Environmental Affairs and the Haryana government for allegedly violating the terms of deforestation project in Gurgaon. The notice came after buyers approached NGT, claiming that the builder had not provided open spaces between the towers in the housing community to build additional residential towers in violation of green standards.
According to a complaint lodged by local buyers, the builder was supposed to build towers with a 13m gap between them, but to save the land and build more towers, upgrade the towers with a smaller gap.
Home buyers said the designer had failed to provide 30 percent green space for the project, thus depriving them of the “right to clean the environment”.
for home buyers, the builder had to build towers with a gap of 13m between them, but saving the world and building more towers, he improved the towers with a small gap.
also read : Only second dose of COVID-19 vaccine at community centers in Mumbai on September 4: BMC
Home buyers said the designer had failed to provide 30 percent green space for the project, thus depriving them of the “right to clean the environment”.
“Non-compliance with EC regulations poses a serious threat to the health and safety of residents. The result of the illegal construction by Project Proponent is that Applicants 1 & 2 reside in Group Housing where the approved minimum distance between the towers can be maintained, the faulty construction of the towers resulted in fatal fires, green area projects lower in size than authorized, among other critical issues, ”said the application.
The distance between the other towers was not 14 to 19 inches instead of 13 meters (45.9 meters high G + 13 Towers) and 8 meters (24.05 meters high G + 5 Towers) approved by the plans approved project design and National Building Code, 2005. In the case of Emerald Court Owner Resident vs. State of UP through Secy. Some on April 11, 2014, the Allahabad High Court ordered the demolition of two residential Towers because the distance between the two building blocks was only 9 meters compared to the 16-meter requirement, he said.
Here’s what home buyers should keep in mind
These cases apparently send a message to home buyers that they need to be careful when choosing to invest in a housing project. Here’s what they need to keep in mind.
Most of the projects found in coastal cities fall under the rules of the Coastal Regulation Zone. Those who want to buy underwater housing need to be extra careful.
front house? Here is a checklist to remember
The developers of the Maradu case have been claiming that the area was part of the panchayat when construction began, but that it was later converted into a municipality.
The Supreme Court order clearly stated that the builders could not use the law to justify their previous violations. It is therefore important that consumers check the rules that existed at the time of construction and not just the current rules. Buyers should be aware of the practical value of building homes along rivers and lakes.
