The 100-metre-tall twin towers of Noida, named Apex and Ceyane, were demolished on 28 August 2022. The demolition generated huge all-round interest. However, this was fixated more on the spectacular methodology used, called ‘controlled implosion’. To carry it out, a 500-metre radius around the buildings was marked as an exclusion zone that was cleared of all presence. The engineers and ‘explosives experts’ bored into the pillars and walls of the two residential buildings with 3,700 kg of explosives. When detonated, they went off in quick succession on the appointed date and time. The floors of the twin towers collapsed onto each other in what is called a “waterfall effect”. An estimated 80,000 tonnes of debris were generated that would take three months to dispose. The demolition was immaculately executed, which was the sole positive in this sordid saga of brazen violation of urban laws, laced with deceit practised on residents of the Emerald Court.  The entire operation was assisted by a posse of police and men from the National Disaster Response Force. The story of this case is that between 2004 and 2006, the New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (NOIDA) allotted a plot of land (54,819.51 sq m) to Supertech Limited for the development of a group housing society by the name of Emerald Court. Between 2005 and 2006, the Authority sanctioned the building plan comprising 16towers, each with ground and 11floors (G+11) and a height of 37 metres. It also endorsed a G+1 shopping complex. The plan contemplated a green area in front of Tower 1. The brochure of Supertech, shared with the purchasers, also displayed this green area. So did the completion certificate of 2008. In 2009, the Government of Uttar Pradesh made an upward revision of FAR (floor area ratio) from 2 to 2.75. Even before this upward change was notified, Supertech commenced the construction of two additional towers— Apex and Ceyane—and informed those who had already bought flats in the other buildings that the T-16 and T-17 towers would have a separate entry, exit, amenities, and infrastructure. Additionally, these two towers, each with G+24 floors and a height of 73 metres, would be separated by a boundary wall.

The Residents Welfare Association (RWA) of Emerald Court decided to dig deep and approached authorities for copies of the sanctioned plans.

On 30 November 2010, the New Okhla Industrial Development Area Building Regulations 2010 came into force. One of its regulations clearly postulated that a specified distance was to be maintained between the two buildings that escalated as the height of buildings rose. In a further revision, T-16 and T-17 were permitted to raise the number of floors from 24 to 40 floors (i.e., G+40), resulting in the building’s height going up to 121 metres. The Residents Welfare Association (RWA) of Emerald Court decided to dig deep and approached authorities for copies of the sanctioned plans. Dissatisfied with the response, it sought information under the Right to Information Act. Sensing multiple violations of regulations, the RWA sought legal advice and took the matter to the courts and fought it out for about a decade. Finally, the Supreme Court set the matter to rest by ordering the demolition of the twin towers. The Supreme Court in its judgment made scathing observations against the planning authority and the developer. It remarked that Supertech Limited and NOIDA made a brazen attempt to stonewall the Emerald Court RWA. It was clear that the prescribed distance between T-1 and T-17 was not maintained. Approvals also glossed over the clear deficiency of open space, and the developer’s proposal for a further increase in the height of the towers from 24 to 40 floors ought to have been rejected outright. Yet NOIDA chose to back the developer in clear defiance of the provisions of the law. Supertech Limited also falsified acts to submit that a cluster of towers in the project constitutes a block which allowed it to subvert the minimum distance requirement. The Supreme Court concluded that the record of this case was replete with instances that highlighted nefarious complicity between the officers of NOIDA and Supertech. The Supreme Court, while upholding the order of the High Court for the demolition of the twin towers, visited the developer with heavy costs. It set a time frame for the demolition to be carried out, paid for by the developer. All incidental expenses, including fees payable to the experts, were to be borne by Supertech. The company was directed to refund money to the flat purchasers in Apex and Ceyane and to reimburse the litigation costs of RWA quantified at INR 20 million.

Demolition also intends to deliver a message that violations will not be tolerated and the prime culprit—the developer—must pay a heavy price for the outrageous conduct.

What should be worrisome to citizens is the Court’s observation that there was a widespread increase in unauthorised constructions, particularly in metropolitan cities. This was in no small measure on account of the collusion between developers and planning authorities. While the need to create more housing stock was understood, it was necessary to balance this with the concerns of the environment and safety. Violation of the environment and safety regulations struck at the very core of urban planning. The focus on the twin towers in the past few weeks should not suggest to us that such construction is the first of its kind. In the 1990s in south Mumbai, the 36-storey tower, Pratibha, labelled as the ‘original tower of corruption’, was pulled down following orders of the Bombay High Court. It was found that the plot area had been inflated to allow for the construction of eight more floors. Recently, in July 2022, the Bombay High Court ordered the demolition of the unauthorised portions of 48 high-rise structures around the airport that had flouted height restrictions and were a hindrance to the landing and take-off procedures of aircrafts. Unfortunately, only a few of such derelictions come to notice, primarily because the others go either uncontested or are not taken to the courts. It is clear that such constructions were based on either falsifying documents or side-stepping planning regulations in collusion with authorities empowered to sanction construction plans. In this case, changes were made in FAR (floor area ratio) that could not fructify without state approval in the urban development department of the state. Some have questioned whether a construction that cost US$0.7 billion to build and US$ 0.2 billion to demolish, should be pulled down at all. There is no doubt that destroying the structure does not serve the primary purpose of providing housing—a basic necessity. There are, however, urban planning angles of environment, built density and safety that are equally significant and need to be regulated. Demolition also intends to deliver a message that violations will not be tolerated and the prime culprit—the developer—must pay a heavy price for the outrageous conduct. Surely, taking a line of argument that all unauthorised structures be confiscated by the state for alternate use is a dangerous argument, totally destructive of any urban governance. Unfortunately, those who are charged with the regulation of construction generally go unpunished which is unacceptable.

While the need to create more housing stock was understood, it was necessary to balance this with the concerns of the environment and safety. Violation of the environment and safety regulations struck at the very core of urban planning.

The best manner of dealing with such issues is the use of good governance tools of transparency and accountability. Every municipal and development authority must mandatorily share all building permissions granted and display them on their website. In case a violation is noticed, the punishment meted out to developers and their abettors has to be severe so that deterrence acquires teeth. The developed world has adopted comprehensive transparency and accountability mechanisms. As a consequence, violation of building codes is rare. Sadly, good governance in ULBs and development authorities in India is constantly talked about, but very little is done about it.

• Urbanisation
• India
• demolition
• Noida
• safety laws
• Urban law
• violation

The views expressed above belong to the author(s). ORF research and analyses now available on Telegram! Click here to access our curated content — blogs, longforms and interviews.