RESPONDENT

2.WHETHER THE CONSTRUCTION OF PAIRED TOWER VIOLATES THE

RESIDENTIAL WELFARE ACT AND FIRE SAFETY REGULATION OR NOT.
It is most humbly submitted before the Hon’ble court that the order of
demolition of paired tower constructed under the project of Ikaira, is not ultra
vires in nature. Herein the arguments advanced have been dealt in threefold
manners i.e., [2.1] The court’s order of demolition was rational. [2.2]
construction of paired tower under Ikaira violate resident welfare act . [2.3]
construction of paired tower under Ikaira violate fire safety regulation.
[2.1] The order of Hon’ble court of demolition was reasonable.
2.1.1 The law must step in to protect legitimate concerns of residents whose
quality of life is directly affected by the failure of the planning authority to
enforce compliance of law. Noone is above law, any rights of each and citizen
must be taken care of. There is no excuse for flouting the law. The court's order can be
the first step towards dismantling the fait accompli route for undermining norms, rules and
regulation.1

2.1.2 The construction of paired towers under the project of Ikaira as later
addition to the previously proposed plans is violation of statutory regulations.
Which is the process of checking by a government organization that a business is
following official rules. Skypar homes limited also failed to take requisite steps to
safeguard the life and property of the people residing in or who booked their property in
the Skypar housing society, Ikaira.
2.1.3 Supreme Court has given supreme power to control and protect the
infringement of fundamental rights. under Article 226 of constitution of India, which
itself is a fundamental right, the high court has that power of safeguarding
fundamental rights of citizens. The court’s order of demolition of paired tower is
under this very section of constitution of India.
2.1.4 Judiciary is the guardian of law and order, and it has the duties of protecting and
safeguarding the life and property of individual hence the order of demolition of paired
tower that clearly violates Resident Welfare Act and disobeys the Fire Safety Regulation
Act, is much needed order.

1
THE HINDU, https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/illegal-structures-cannot-be-rebuilt-says-
supremecourt/article29807634.ece , (last visited April 19, 2023).
2.1.5 The courts must ensure that demolition as a (last) resort to remove an illegal structure is conducted in keeping with
due process prescribed under law. For far too long, illegal constructions have used the excuse of improper demolitions to
stall and stay. Rules are regularly flouted and norms not observed in the construction of buildings, remodelling of flats and
building of extensions. Once built, the only action taken is a small fine or a cosmetic demolition of a wing. 2

2.1.6 Rule of law comprises not only of the principles of Natural Justice but also provides
that the procedure prescribed by law must be followed. Rule of law also envisages those
illegal constructions which are constructed in violation of law must be demolished and
there can be no sympathy towards those who violate law’ 3
2.1.7 What was essentially sought for by the direction was regularisation of
unauthorised construction. In essence what the high court has directed is to
regularise an unauthorised occupation and regularisation of unauthorised
encroachment.4

[2.2] construction of paired tower under Ikaira violate Resident Welfare Act.
2.2.1 the construction of the paired tower was not in accordance with the laws
and the necessary permission of the responsible authority was not sought.
Also, the construction of paired tower by change in plan violate Resident
Welfare Act. This Revealed nefarious complicity of the planning authoritiely in
the violation by the developer of the provision of law.
2.2.2 Skypar homes limited proposed construction of two new towers i.e.
paired tower and new plan was put up for approval from the authorities and
the construction was started before getting the permission from them.
2.2.3 the said construction violates The Resident Welfare Act (RWA) which
required that any change in the original plan, would require a consent from the
resident welfare association, i.e., an association of persons who were already
living or who had bought the flats from such developer or who had booked
their flats therein.
2.2.4 The proposed construction was over the green park, which was the part of proposed
central park, 50% of the area of park was occupied by these two towers, hence if allowed
would violate the rights of resident as well those who booked property in the project
considering this.

2
The Economic Times https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/opinion/et-editorial/demolish-illegal-structures-
legally/articleshow/92883667.cms?from=mdr (last visited April 19, 2023)
3
JAMIAT ULAMA-I-HIND v. NDMC, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1050
4
B.L. Wadhera(Dr) v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi, 2003 SCC OnLine Del 528
 2.2.5 No information about the change in plan was given to the residents or to the resident
welfare association, who have direct authority over any change in plan of the construction
of Skypar housing society, Ikaira. This shows the clear violation of laws of the state.
2.2.6 In the opinion of the court if the erection of building is in contravention of any of
the provisions of Resident Welfare Act or the Rules or bye laws made therein action can
be taken. Therefore, in the opinion of the court if the erection of a building is contrary to
the bye laws then irrespective of sanction, action can be taken for demolition. 5
2.2.7 The construction of paired tower was about making money than ensuring the
safety of the residents. According to resident welfare act , the safety of the
residents should be priority and developing company should compliance with all
the rules and norms prescribed for the construction of housing society. Rights of
the flat purchaser have been brazenly violated, this cannot point to any conclusion,
other than the collusion between ikaria and the applellant to avoid complying with
the provisions of the applicable statutes and regulations for monetary gain, at the
cost of the rights of the flat purchasers.
 2.2.8 The construction of Towers 16 and 17 in accordance with the second
and third revised plans reduced the value of the undivided interest held by
each existing individual flat purchaser in the common areas and facilities.
This violated Section 5 of the AmiranaAct 1975 and Section 5 of the
Amirana Apartments Act, 2010 as it was done without the consent of the
existing flat purchasers. Further, the third revised plan encroached on the
garden area promised to be provided in front of Tower 1 thereby resiling on
the representation made by Skypar homes to the flat purchasers of Tower 1,
without their consent.6

[2.3] construction of paired tower under Ikaira violate Fire Safety Regulation.
2.3.1 The regulations required that for towers having more than 10 floors, a
minimum gap of 15 meters was to be maintained from all the adjoining towers,
but the paired towers being 16 story building had a gap of 6 meters between
themselves and 8 meters from the other towers.7
2.3.2 The fire safety officer had flagged the concern around the non-adherence
to the Fire Safety Regulation but Skypar Homes Limited didn’t paid any heed to
it. Construction of building without following fire safety norms put the life of

5
Vikas Singh v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1207
6
P.K. Koul v. Estate Officer, 2010 SCC OnLine Del 4207
7
City and Industrial Development Corpn. of Maharashtra v. Ekta Mahila Mandal, (2007) 7 SCC 701
 residents on risk. In case of a fire accident, the people cannot be effectively
rescued due to lack of space between the towers.
2.3.3 Construction of such a large project of residential properties without
adhering to the fire safety regulation without considering the potential
negative impacts of such developments on the people who would eventually
inhabit such houses shows self-interest of these business houses. This proves
the illegal construction facilitated by collusion among the developer and the
development authority.8
2.3.4 The purpose of maintaining distance between buildings is a matter public
interest in planned development. Residents who occupy constructed areas in a
housing project are entitled to ventilation, light and air and adherence to fire
safety norms. The prescription of a minimum distance also has a bearing on fire
safety. Presence of structures in close proximity poses serious hurdles to fire-
fighting machinery which has to be deployed by the civic body.9
2.3.5 In high rise buildings wherein fire safety measures are required to be provided
under the bye laws, National Building Code as well as any other provision which are
applicable, the builders, developers, organizers, contractors, architects and engineers,
society, Association of persons etc erecting buildings shall provide fire safety measure as
per bye laws and without such measures, the respondent authorities shall not grant
occupancy certificate.10

8
Chapter 7
Fire protection and fire safety requirements.
9
City and Industrial Development Corpn. of Maharashtra v. Ekta Mahila Mandal, (2007) 7 SCC 701
10
livemint https://www.livemint.com/industry/infrastructure/explained-noida-supertech-towers-demolition-
verdict-by-supreme-court-11630735348085.html ( last visited 20 April, 2023).