Lessons from the fall of Noida’s twin towers

Regulating building activity

Watching the 100-metre-tall twin towers in Noida razed to dust and rubble, I was amazed at the 12-second miracle of modern technology. Over 25 years ago, in the mid-1990s, as Administrator of the then Bangalore City Corporation, I had undertaken the first-ever demolition of illegal structures in Bengaluru, and I remember how the workers had to struggle with crowbars and axes to pull down, not high-rise, but basement structures. We have come a long way in terms of technology, but the problem of illegal constructions seems to have only become worse.

One of the serious issues faced by cities in India, particularly the metros, pertains to the high prices of urban land. The city planning and development authorities have not been able to ensure supply of adequate public land and housing for the growing urban populations. This has led to private developers playing a key role in meeting the demand for housing, commercial and other development needs of our cities.

The regulation of private construction activity has, however, been poor, which has encouraged not only developers but even ordinary people to overlook the requirements of building regulations. Over the years, the tendency to build in violation of the law has only grown, thanks to the city authorities turning a blind eye to such violations. But excesses can lead to painful consequences, and this is what happened in Noida.

The history of the case exposes the callous attitude of both the greedy developer and the corrupt officials. Supertech Ltd, the builder, was allotted land for a group housing project by the New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (Noida) in 2004 and a building plan was sanctioned for construction of 14 residential towers of 10 floors each. In 2006, the builder obtained more land, and the plan was revised to accommodate one more residential tower. Not satisfied, in 2009, Supertech got sanction for two more towers, with 24 floors each.

This was when the residents of the place first objected to the violation of building norms. Strangely, ignoring the objections raised, in 2012, the plan was revised to build one more tower, this one with 40 floors. Finally, 32 storeys were raised in the Apex tower and 29 in Ceyane tower. The Noida Authority happily cooperated with the builder in revising the building plan, without any consideration of building regulations.

In December 2012, the Residents Association of Emerald Court filed a case in the High Court of Allahabad alleging violation of the building norms and lack of residents’ consent for the new towers within the same housing complex. It was also pointed out that the land on which the building was being raised had actually been earmarked for a park.

In 2014, the High Court ordered demolition of the buildings. While stopping further construction, Supertech moved the Supreme Court for relief. The case dragged on for seven years, and finally the apex court passed an order for demolition on August 21, 2021, for violation of building norms, observing that “illegal construction has to be dealt with strictly to ensure compliance with the rule of law…the case has revealed a nefarious complicity of the planning authority in the violation by the developer of the provisions of the law”.

This was the second case where such demolition was ordered by the Supreme Court, the first being the one pertaining to four housing complexes in Maradu municipal area of Kochi in January 2020 for violation of Coastal Zone Regulations. These two demolitions, one in the north adjoining the megacity of Delhi, and the other in the south, located in an environmentally sensitive zone, have some important lessons to offer.

One, however big and powerful a developer may be, he will suffer the consequences if he violates the law. It is hoped that the real estate industry will take note that it will be held accountable for violation of building norms.

Two, the urban planning and municipal authorities will do well to wake up to the fact that collusion with builders or other law violators will lead to serious consequences and keep public interest in mind while discharging their responsibilities.

Three, home buyers must familiarise themselves with building and environmental regulations and be cautious in entering into agreements with developers, and make sure that they comply with the legal requirements. They must seek protection from RERA wherever required.

Four, residents’ associations must be vigilant and bring illegal constructions to the notice of authorities at the initial stage itself for corrective action. They must also create awareness about keeping the neighbourhood free from activities that violate the law.

Questions have been raised about the necessity to demolish a building after it is completed, as it results in huge losses and also hardship for those who have already invested in buying homes there. The twin towers’ demolition is said to have caused a loss of Rs 500 crore to the builder and cost Rs 20 crore for the demolition work. Is there an alternative to demolition for taking action against errant builders?

It has been suggested that the government could take over such buildings and put them to some public use. This may sound reasonable, but it could also be seen as government violating the law by occupying an illegal structure. Penalties have not worked, either. We have reached a situation where illegal constructions are taken for granted and schemes like Akrama-Sakrama, proposed for Bengaluru, only incentivise such activities. When the builder and the regulator collude to violate the law, only drastic action can yield results.

The real solution to the problem lies in the relevant government agencies enforcing the law strictly and the citizens being vigilant and holding the authorities to account. The High Courts and the lower courts, in particular, which freely grant injunctions and stay orders, must draw inspiration from the Supreme Court to uphold the rule of law. Government must amend the building regulations to suit the requirements of growing cities and do away with provisions that are impractical to comply with and become a source of harassment by the inspectors.

The built environment must be viewed in the broader context of planning of urban agglomerations and creating good neighbourhoods. The rigidities of city ‘masterplan’ must make way for a more imaginative approach in keeping with the economic and technological developments of the 21st century.

(The writer is a former Chief Secretary, Govt of Karnataka)