2021 Supreme(SC) 493

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD, M.R. SHAH, JJ.
Supertech Limited - Appellant
Versus
Emerald Court Owner Resident Welfare Association & Ors. - Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 5041 to 5050 of 2021 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 11959, 12470, 14262, 21035, 31117, 14314 of 2014, 12427, 12947, 12948 of 2015, 12191 of 2021 (Diary No. 28571 of 2018), Contempt Petition (C) No. 380 to 384 of 2021
Decided on : 31-08-2021

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Breach by planning authority of its obligation to ensure compliance with building regulations is actionable at instance of residents whose rights are infringed by violation of law. Their quality of life is directly affected by failure of planning authority to enforce compliance.
(2) Demolition of Towers 16 and 17 by New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, in Emerald Court, confirmed.
(3) Interpretation of Statute – Words must be given their plain and ordinary meaning unless such an interpretation leads to an ambiguity or absurdity or when object of statute indicates otherwise.

Headnote:

(A) Uttar Pradesh Urban Development Act 1973 – Section 49 – Uttar Pradesh Industrial Area Development Act 1976 – Section 12 – Regulations 33.2.3 of the NBR 2006 – Illegal construction – Direction by High Court for demolition of Towers 16 and 17 by New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, in Emerald Court – Developer cannot be allowed to subvert requirement of maintaining minimum distances prescribed in Building Regulations by unilaterally designating independent towers as building blocks – Purpose of stipulating a minimum distance comprehends several concerns – These include safeguarding privacy of occupants and their enjoyment of basic civic amenities including access to well-ventilated areas where air and light are not blocked by presence of close towering constructions – Access to these amenities is becoming a luxury instead of a necessity – Prescription of a minimum distance also has a bearing on fire safety – If a developer is left with unbridled discretion to define content of expression “building block”, this will defeat purpose of prescribing minimum distances, leaving health, safety and quality of life of flat buyers at mercy of developers. (Paras 37, 65 to 67)

(B) Building Bye-laws – Uttar Pradesh Urban Development Act 1973 – Section 49 – Uttar Pradesh Industrial Area Development Act 1976 – Section 12 – Illegal construction – Demolition of Towers 16 and 17 by New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, in Emerald Court – Distance between T-1 and T-17 should have been 16 mtrs., as opposed to 9 mtrs. – Dead end’ in common parlance means no exit or absence of access. NBR 2010 does not provide any indication to classify between habitable and non-habitable rooms in context of phrase ‘dead end side’ – Once this Court has determined that sanctioned plan for Apex and Ceyane (T-16 and T-17) breached NBR 2006, NBR 2010, NBC 2005, UP 1975 Act and UP Apartments Act 2010, it becomes its duty to take stock of violations committed by appellant in collusion with NOIDA – Appellant has raised false pleas and attempted to mislead this Court, while officials of NOIDA have not acted bona fide in discharge of their duties – Appellant has stooped to the point of producing a fabricated sanctioned plan – From commencement to completion, process of construction by developers is regulated within framework of law – Regulatory framework encompasses all stages of construction, including allocation of land, sanctioning of plan for construction, regulation of structural integrity of structures under construction, obtaining clearances from different departments (fire, garden, sewage, etc.), and issuance of occupation and completion certificates – Breach by planning authority of its obligation to ensure compliance with building regulations is actionable at instance of residents whose rights are infringed by violation of law – Their quality of life is directly affected by failure of planning authority to enforce compliance – Directions of High Court including order of demolition and for sanctioning prosecution under Section 49 of UPUD Act, as incorporated by Section 12 of UPIAD Act 1976, against officials of appellant and officers of NOIDA for violations of UPIAD Act 1976 and UP Apartments Act 2010, confirmed. (Paras 72, 73, 105, 102, , 147, 148, 155 and 156)

(C) Building Bye-laws – Dead end sides of the block – Interpretation of – Phrase ‘dead end side of the block’ would mean that any building does not have an egress – An egress in a non-habitable room like bathroom or storeroom will be considered as a non-dead end side – For ‘dead end’ exception to be applicable, it is necessary that sides of both buildings facing each other must not have any egress – It is not necessary that all units in building facing other building must have an egress – Even if some of units have an egress, that side of block will not be considered as a ‘dead end side’; and minimum distance required between two adjacent blocks must not be measured through direct line positions of units but along the ground. (Paras 110)

(D) Interpretation of Statute – Literal Construction – Words must be given their plain and ordinary meaning unless such an interpretation leads to an ambiguity or absurdity or when object of statute indicates otherwise – Interpreting the phrase in context of ordinary meaning of word ‘dead end’ does not lead to any ambiguity; rather it is in pursuance of intent and purpose behind the provision – Court while interpreting the expression will have to attribute a contextual meaning to the phrase ‘dead end side of the block’. (Paras 102 and 105)

Facts of the case:

Present appeals have arisen from a judgment of a Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad dated 11th April 2014, upon a writ petition instituted by the first respondent, the Residents’ Welfare Association of Emerald Court Group Housing Society. By its judgment, High Court directed, (i) demolition of Towers -16 and 17 by third respondent, New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, in Emerald Court situated on Plot No 4, Sector 93A, NOIDA constructed by appellant, Supertech Limited; (ii) Cost of demolition and removal would be borne by the appellant, failing which NOIDA shall recover it as arrears of land revenue; (iii) Sanction for prosecution under Section 49 of Uttar Pradesh Urban Development Act 1973, as incorporated by Section 12 of Uttar Pradesh Industrial Area Development Act 1976, shall be granted for the prosecution of the officials of the appellant and the officers of NOIDA for possible violations of the UPIAD Act 1976 and Uttar Pradesh Apartment (Promotion of Construction, Ownership & Maintenance) Act 2010; and (iv) Refund by appellant of amounts invested by purchasers who had booked apartments in T-16 and T-17, with interest at fourteen per cent, compounded annually. Correctness of these directions is challenged before this Court in the present appeals.

Findings of Court:

Work of demolition shall be carried out by the appellant at its own cost under the supervision of the officials of NOIDA. In order to ensure that the work of demolition is carried out in a safe manner without affecting the existing pleadings, NOIDA shall consult its own experts and experts from Central Building Research Institute Roorkee.. Work of demolition shall be carried out under the overall supervision of CBRI. In the event that CBRI expresses its inability to do so, another expert agency shall be nominated by NOIDA.

Result : Appeals disposed of with directions and observations.