Suresh Chander And 10 Others vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 21821 of 2025
AFR
Reserved on 01.10.2026
Delivered on 27.10.2026
Suresh Chander and 10 others
…..Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and 2 others
…..Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Manjari Singh, Rahul Jain
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Abhinav Gaur, C.S.C., Manu
Ghildyal, Tejasvi Misra, Vibhu Rai
With
WRIT - C No. - 68187 of 2015
Gulmohur Greens Residents Welfare Association
…..Petitioner(s)
Versus
Ghaziabad Development Authority and another
…..Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Abhinav Gaur, Dinesh Kumar
Singh, Nirvikar Gupta, Priyansh,
Vibhu Rai
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Anoop Trivedi (senior Adv.),
Mahesh Narain Singh, Nikhil
Kumar, S.C., Shivam Yadav,
Vrindavan Mishra, M.n.singh

2
WRIC No. - 21821 of 2025
HON'BLE SARAL SRIVASTAVA, J.
HON'BLE SUDHANSHU CHAUHAN, J.
(Delivered by Hon’ble Saral Srivastava,J)
1. Heard Sri Ashish Singh, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Ms.
Manjari Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Shashi Nandan,
learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Tejasvi Mishra, learned counsel
for respondent no.2 and Sri Shivam Yadav, learned counsel for
respondent no.3 appearing in Writ C No.21821 of 2025.
2. Heard Sri Sanjeev Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri
Priyansh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri M.C. Chaturvedi,
learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Sri Mahesh Narain
Singh, learned counsel for GDA appearing in Writ-C No.68187 of 2015.
3. These two connected petitions involve common question,
therefore, they are being decided by this common judgement.
4. We have summoned the original record of Ghaziabad
Development Authority for our perusal.
5. For convenience, facts are being delineated from Writ-C No.21821
of 2025. However, if necessary, the facts stated in the connected Writ-C
No.68187 of 2015 shall be referred to at an appropriate place in the
judgement.
6. The petitioner in the present writ petition have approached this
Court with the following prayer:-
“i. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing
the compounding order dated 18.12.2024.
ii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus
directing the respondent no.2 to issue any more approvals to the
original sanctioned map without taking consent from apartment
owners as provided under the U.P. Apartment Act, 2010.
iii. Any other or further relief which the Court may deem fit and
proper under facts and circumstances of the case.
iv. Award the cost of the writ petition.”

3
WRIC No. - 21821 of 2025
7. The facts, in brief, are that the petitioners are the owners and
residents of apartment situated at Gulmohar Greens Residential Society,
situated at 95, Katori Mill, Mohan Nagar, Sahibabad, District Ghaziabad
(hereinafter referred to as ‘Apartment’).
8. The record also reveals that M/s S.V.P. Builders India Limited-
respondent no.3, a Company incorporated under the Companies Act,
2013 is the partner and general power of attorney of M/s Friends Land
Developers Private Limited, a partnership firm (hereinafter referred to as
the 'Promoter'), which had applied for sanction of map for establishing a
Group Housing Scheme in respect of land comprised in Khasra Nos. 955
to 960, 1010, 1011, 1014, 1015, 1017 to 1051 situated in Village
Karheda, District Ghaziabad i.e. 95 Katori Mill, Mohan Nagar,
Sahibabad, District Ghaziabad. Under the said Group Housing Scheme,
the Promoter had proposed to construct 34 towers having a total number
of 904 units/flats. As would be evident from the records the sale deed of
the flats so constructed has been executed in favour of the purchasers by
M/s S.V.P. Builders India Limited-respondent no.3 on behalf of
Promoter.
9. It is stated that the map was sanctioned on 29.05.2006. As per the
sanctioned map dated 29.05.2006, the details of each Tower is
reproduced herein-below:-
Sl. No. Tower Specification
1. T-1 B+G+8
2. T-2 B+G+8
3. T-3 B+G+7
4. T-4 B+G+7
5. T-5 B+G+7
6. T-6 B+G+7
7. T-7 B+G+7
8. T-8 B+G+7
9. T-9 B+G+7
10. T-10 B+G+7
11. T-11 B+G+7
12. T-12 B+G+7

4
WRIC No. - 21821 of 2025
13. T-13 B+G+7
14. T-14 B+G+7
15. T-15 B+G+7
16. T-16 B+G+7
17. T-17 B+G+5
18. T-18 B+G+7
19. T-19 B+G+7
20. T-20 B+G+7
21. T-21 B+G+7
22. T-22 B+G+7
23. T-23 B+G+6
24. T-24 B+G+6
25. T-25 B+G+6
26. T-26 B+G+6
27. T-27 B+G+6
28. T-28 B+G+6
29. T-29 B+G+6
30. T-30 B+G+6
31. T-31 B+G+6
32. T-32 B+G+6
33. T-33 B+G+6
34. T-34 B+G+6
10. It appears that an objection was raised about the title and
ownership of Khasra Nos.955 to 960, 1010, 1011, 1014, 1015, 1017 to
1051 by the officers of Air Force at Hindon Air Base due to which the
map was cancelled on 03.07.2010.
11. The record further reveals that before cancellation of map, the
Promoter had already constructed 720 units in terms of original layout
plan dated 29.05.2006 out of 904 sanctioned dwelling units. It appears
that the Promoter submitted the first compounding map with 374
additional dwelling units as 720 units were already constructed before
cancellation of original map. The total number of dwelling units which
the Promoter applied by way of first compounding map was 1094 units.
12. The first compounding map was sanctioned on 15.11.2011 by
which 720 pre-existing dwelling units were compounded against 904

5
WRIC No. - 21821 of 2025
dwelling units, which was sanctioned by way of original map dated
29.05.2006.
13. By the first compounding map, 374 new proposed units were also
sanctioned. The details of Towers containing 720 constructed units till
cancellation of sanctioned layout plan dated 03.07.2010 as per note sheet
appearing on page-56 of original record annexed as Annexure-5 to the
counter affidavit are being reproduced below:-
Sl.
No.
Tower No. Exist FAR Exist Level Units
1. T-2 6691.99 B+G+8 36
2. T-3 6691.99 B+G+8 36
3. T-4 5120.81 B+G+8 32
4. T-5 5120.81 B+G+8 32
5. T-6 5265.91 B+G+8 36
6. T-7 5265.91 B+G+8 36
7. T-8 4062.00 B+G+8 36
8. T-9 4062.00 B+G+8 36
9. T-10 4062.00 B+G+8 36
10. T-11 4062.00 B+G+8 36
11. T-12 4062.00 B+G+8 36
12. T-12A 4311.71 B+G+8 36
13. T-14 4493.35 B+G+8 36
14. T-15 4493.35 B+G+8 36
15. T-24 5156.92 B+G+8 36
16. T-25 5156.92 B+G+8 36
17. T-26 5156.92 B+G+8 36
18. T-30 4931.37 B+G+8 32
19. T-31 5019.04 B+G+8 36
20. T-32 5019.04 B+G+8 36
21. T-33 530.07 B+G 4
22. T-34 530.07 B+G 4
23. T-35 530.07 B+G 4
24. Community 599.21 G+F -
100395.46 720
14. The Promoter has also deviated in the area and set-back and also
in mumty and machine room which is evident from the compounding

6
WRIC No. - 21821 of 2025
calculation appearing on page-57 of the counter affidavit of
Development Authority for the purpose of granting approval to the first
compounding. The compounding calculation appearing on page 57 of the
counter affidavit is reproduced below:-
“ग़ाज़ियाबाद विकास अधिकरण, ग़ाज़ियाबाद
(टिप्पड़ियां एवं आदेश)
शमन गणना -
1. Permissible but not sanctioned
FAR 100395.46 m²
=
Basement = 31689.01 m²
Mumty & Machine Room = 1148.94 m²
Fire Stair = 3846.72 m²
Total area = 137080.13 m²
Penalty 137080.13 m² @ Rs.25 per m² = Rs.34,27,004.00-(A)
2. Area in Set Backs.
a. For Basement Tower 2 & 3 = 206.06 m²
Penalty 206.06 m² @ 18000/2 = Rs.1854540.00-(B)
b. For Ground Floor Tower 2 & 3 = 314.50 m²
Between Tower 12 & 12A = 22.10 m²
Between Tower 12A & 14 = 27.76 m²
= 364.36 m²
Penalty 364.36 m² @ 18000 = Rs. 6558480.00-©
3. Extra Covered in Balcony
Tower 2 & 3 111.76 x 2 = 223.52 m²
Tower 4 & 5 75.32 x 2 = 150.64 m²
Tower 6 & 7 81.32 x 2 = 162.64 m²
Tower 8 to 12 80.42 x 5 = 402.10 m²
Tower 12A 79.96 x 1 = 79.96 m²
Tower 14 & 15 145.70 x 2 = 291.40 m²
= 194.64 m²
Tower 24, 25, 26 64.88 x 3
= 48.32 m²
Tower 30 48.32 x 1

7
WRIC No. - 21821 of 2025
Tower 31 & 32 48.32 x 2 = 96.48 m²
Tower 33, 34 & 35 4.16 x 3 = 12.48 m²
= 1662.18 m²
Penalty = 1662.18 m² @ 200 per m² = 332436.00-(D)
= A + B + C + D = Rs.1,21,72,460.00
कुल शमन शुल्क
:
पार्किंग
906 Ecs
आवश्यक
906 Ecs “
प्रस्तावित
15. The aforesaid note sheet contains a calculation for the purpose of
compounding. It is evident from the aforesaid note sheet that the
Promoter has made deviation in basement, mumty and machine room, in
basement and ground floor of Tower nos.2 & 3. He had also made
deviation in extending the balconies of flats shown at point no.3.
16. Under the first compounding, the details of proposed additional
towers appearing on page-63, part of Annexure-5 to the counter affidavit
of GDA are given below:-
"
प्रस्तावित
क्र.सं. टावर / विवरण क्षेत्रफल
1 टावर 16 व 17 (G+8) 7259.17 वर्गमी.
2 टावर 18 (G+8) 3327.58 वर्गमी.
3 टावर 19 (G+8) 3327.58 वर्गमी.
4 टावर 27 (G+3) 2445.24 वर्गमी.
5 टावर 28 (G+6 व G+7) 4594.16 वर्गमी.
6 टावर 29 (G+3) 2445.24 वर्गमी.
7 टावर 33 (1 to 8) 4168.48 वर्गमी.
8 टावर 34 (1 to 8) 2664.302 वर्गमी.
9 टावर 35 (1 to 8) 4168.48 वर्गमी.
10 टावर 01 कन्वीनियन्ट शॉप (G) 405.00 वर्गमी.
11 टावर 36 व 37 (G+3) 3230.07 वर्गमी.
12 टावर 38 व 39 (G+4) 4035.89 वर्गमी.
कुल 42071.266 वर्गमी .
17. The aforesaid deviation, addition and construction of additional
towers have been approved by the first compounding on 15.11.2011.

8
WRIC No. - 21821 of 2025
18. After the first compounding, the Promoter made deviations from
first compounding map. He, therefore, submitted another application for
compounding which was allowed on 13.01.2015. The details of Towers
of second compounding are given below:-
Sl.No. Tower Specification Status
1. T-1 Convenient Shops Proposed
2. T-2 B+G+8 Already Compounded
3. T-3 B+G+8 Already Compounded
th th
4. T-4 B+G+6+PH (7 & 8 ) Already Compounded
th th
5. T-5 B+G+6+PH (7 & 8 ) Already Compounded
6. T-6 B+G+8 Already Compounded
7. T-7 B+G+8 Already Compounded
8. T-8 B+G+8 Already Compounded
9. T-9 B+G+8 Already Compounded
10. T-10 B+G+8 Already Compounded
11. T-11 B+G+8 Already Compounded
12. T-12 B+G+8 Already Compounded
13. T-12A B+G+8 Already Compounded
14. T-14 B+G+8 Already Compounded
15. T-15 B+G+8 Already Compounded
16. T-16 G+8 Existing
17. T-17 G+8 Existing
18. T-18 G+8 Existing
19. T-19 G+8 Existing
20. T-24 B+G+8 Already Compounded
21. T-25 B+G+8 Already Compounded
22. T-26 B+G+8
(Existing)
Already Compounded
23. T-27 Under Construction -
24. T-28 Under Construction -
th th
25. T-30 B+G+6+PH (7 & 8 ) Already Compounded
26. T-31 B+G+8 Already Compounded
27. T-32 B+G+8 Already Compounded
28. T-33 B+G+10
(Existing)
For Compounding
29. T-34 B+G+10
(Existing)
For Compounding
30. T-35 B+G+10
(Existing)
For Compounding

9
WRIC No. - 21821 of 2025
31. T-36 B+G+3 Proposed
32. T-37 B+G+3 Proposed
33. T-38 B+G+4 Proposed
34. T-39 B+G+4 Proposed
19. The Promoter again made deviation in the second compounding
map. Accordingly, he submitted an application for third compounding
which was allowed by the respondents on 18.12.2024. The details of
blocks/flats are being reproduced below:-
Sl.No. Tower Specification Status
2. T-2 B+G+8 Already Compounded
3. T-3 B+G+8 Already Compounded
th th
4. T-4 B+G+6+PH (7 & 8 ) Already Compounded
th th
5. T-5 B+G+6+PH (7 & 8 ) Already Compounded
6. T-6 B+G+8 Already Compounded
7. T-7 B+G+8 Already Compounded
8. T-8 B+G+8 Already Compounded
9. T-9 B+G+8 Already Compounded
10. T-10 B+G+8 Already Compounded
11. T-11 B+G+8 Already Compounded
12. T-12 B+G+8 Already Compounded
13. T-12A B+G+8 Already Compounded
14. T-14 B+G+8 Already Compounded
15. T-15 B+G+8 Already Compounded
16. T-16 G+10 (Existing) G+8 Already
Compounded
17. T-17 G+10 (Existing) G+8 Already
Compounded
18. T-18 G+10 (Existing) G+8 Already
Compounded
19. T-19 G+10 (Existing) G+8 Already
Compounded
20. T-24 B+G+8 Already Compounded
21. T-25 B+G+8 Already Compounded
22. T-26 B+G+8 (Existing) Already Compounded
23. T-27 B+G+4 Existing
24. T-28 B+G+4 Existing
th th
25. T-30 B+G+6+PH (7 & 8 ) Already Compounded
26. T-31 B+G+8 Already Compounded

10
WRIC No. - 21821 of 2025
27. T-32 B+G+8 Already Compounded
33. T-33 B+G+10 (Existing) Already Compounded
34. T-34 B+G+10 (Existing) Already Compounded
35. T-35 B+G+10 (Existing) Already Compounded
20. The State of U.P. enacted Uttar Pradesh Apartment (Promotion of
Construction, Ownership and Maintenance) Act, 2010 (hereinafter
referred to as ‘Act, 2010’) and Uttar Pradesh Apartment (Promotion of
Construction, Ownership and Maintenance) Rules, 2011 (hereinafter
referred to as ‘Rules, 2011’) were framed on 19.11.2011.
21. Under the Rule 2 (c) of the Rules, 2011, the Vice Chairman,
Ghaziabad Development Authority in whose development area the
building is situated is the ‘Competent Authority’. Hence, in the present
case, the Vice Chairman, Ghaziabad Development Authority is the
Competent Authority under the Act, 2010.
22. The object of the Act, 2010 is to provide for ownership of an
individual apartment in a building of an undivided interest in the
common areas and facility appurtenant to such apartment and to make
such apartment and interest heritable, transferable and for matters
connected therewith. Thus, the preliminary object of the Act, 2010 is to
protect and preserve the interests and rights of the apartment owners.
23. The grievance of the petitioners is that the Promoter while getting
the map compounded time and again violated Section 5 (3) (a) of the
Act, 2010, as no consent was taken from the petitioners before
submitting the map for compounding on all occasions.
24. According to the petitioners, the object of promulgation of Act,
2010 is to make sure that the rights of apartment owners are protected
and they are not harassed by the Promoter and interest of individual
apartment owner is protected and guarded against the Promoter as he is
in a dominant position.
25. The petitioners have stated in the writ petition that the Promoter
has violated the provisions of Act 2010, but the Competent Authority

11
WRIC No. - 21821 of 2025
namely, Vice Chairman, Ghaziabad, who is entrusted with the duty to
ensure the compliance of the Act, 2010 did not take any step to enforce
the provisions of the Act, 2010.
26. It is also the further case of the petitioners that the provisions of
Act, 2010 and Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act,
1973 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act,1973’) and the Compounding
Rules have been violated with impunity inasmuch as respondent no.2 has
compounded those offences which could not have been compounded
under the Rules.
27. It is pleaded in the writ petition by the petitioners that Promoter
has included the Air Force land in his plot while calculating permissible
FAR and ground coverage and the respondent no.2 without verifying the
title of the Promoter over the entire land has approved the compounding.
The FAR compounded in third compounding is in excess of permissible
FAR area which is impermissible under the law.
28. The case of respondent no. 2 is that total dwelling units which
were permissible in terms of Building Bye-laws was 1603, therefore,
compounding has been done within the sanctioned limit being that of
1094 dwelling units by way of first compounding map dated 15.11.2011.
29. It is stated that the Promoter's application for third compounding
was within the permissible FAR. Accordingly, the same was
compounded in terms of the Building Bye-laws.
30. Respondent No.2 states that the consent in terms of Section 5 (3)
(a) of the Act, 2010 is applicable only when Promoter seeks changes in
the original layout plan i.e. if the Promoter intends to increase sanctioned
limit of dwelling units, then in such case, the consent is required.
However, if there is no change in the original layout plan, then there is
no application of Section 5(3) (a) of the Act, 2010 as is in the present
case, the compounding has been done within the sanctioned limit of
1094 units sanctioned on 15.11.2011 by way of first compounding.
31. The Promoter has also filed an affidavit raising preliminary
objection in respect to maintainability of writ petition on the ground that

12
WRIC No. - 21821 of 2025
individual flat owners may maintain a writ petition only where Residents
Welfare Association is not in existence.
32. It is stated that in the present case, Gulmohar Greens Residents
Welfare Association (GGRWA) is in existence and has approached this
Court by instituting a Writ-C No.68187 of 2015, therefore, the present
writ petition on behalf of individual flat owners is not maintainable.
33. Further, it is the case of the Promoter that the petitioners
purchased their respective flats long after layout came to be sanctioned
on 15.11.2011. The registered sale deed of petitioner no.1 is dated
07.09.2012, which is subsequent to the date of sanction of layout on
15.11.2011. Accordingly, it is pleaded that as the petitioners purchased
their respective flats with full knowledge and notice of the sanctioned
layout plan, therefore, the petitioners are estopped by their conduct in
complaining about the layout.
34. It is pleaded that the writ petition of the petitioners is barred by
delay and laches inasmuch as the petitioners seek to reopen the first
layout compounded map dated 15.11.2011 and second compounded map
dated 13.01.2015, which are sought to be assailed after lapse of nearly
14 years & 10 years respectively.
35. It is also stated that allegation of petitioners that the Promoter
wrongly included Air Force Land (Khasra no.1034 & 1035) while
computing the permissible FAR and ground coverage is incorrect.
36. The Promoter stated that the plot having an area of 87930 Sq.
meter is lawful holding of the Promoter being it’s private/freehold land
together with the land secured under the land exchange deed.
37. The Promoter also states that no consent contemplated under
Section 5 (3) (a) of the Act, 2010 is required in the present case. It is
further stated that the Promoter has applied for completion certificate,
and respondent no.2 did not intimate the rejection of completion
certificate, therefore, the completion certificate shall be deemed to have
been issued by the Authority.

13
WRIC No. - 21821 of 2025
38. It has also been pleaded that Rule 2 (1) (h) (iv) of Uttar Pradesh
Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2016 (hereinafter
referred to as the ‘Rules, 2016’) provides that the project in which the
development work has been completed and in respect of which an
application for completion certificate has been made to the Competent
Authority need not be registered under the Rules, 2016.
39. It is stated that in view of Section 15A (1) of the Act, 1973 and in
terms of scheme of Section 4 (5) of the Act, 2010, the completion
certificate applied for by the Promoter having remained undecided far
beyond the stipulated period stood deemed to have been issued, and the
Promoter bonafidely and legitimately proceeded on the footing that the
completion certificate stood deemed to have been granted in his favour.
40. Challenging the third compounding map, Sri Ashish Singh,
learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has contended that it is amply
clear from the record that respondent Nos.2 & the Promoter are hands in
glove with each other. It is submitted that multiple compounding of
layout plan/map by respondent no.2 has been done to benefit the
Promoter which is against the express mandate and object of the Act,
2010.
41. It is contended that Section 5(3)(a) of the Act, 2010 mandates that
the Promoter cannot change the original layout plan or get the map
compounded multiple times without taking prior written consent from all
the apartment owners. Accordingly, it is urged that in the instant case,
Promoter has deviated from the original layout plan multiple times
without taking written consent of all the apartment owners, therefore, the
compounding of map without complying with the mandate of Section
5(3)(a) of the Act, 2010 is impermissible and illegal.
42. The contention of the petitioners is that the collusion of
respondent no.2 with the Promoter is evident from the fact that
respondent no.2 is the competent authority to enforce the provisions of
the Act, 2010 and has been entrusted with wide powers to take action
against the offences committed under Sections 25 & 26 of the Act,

14
WRIC No. - 21821 of 2025
2010, but respondent no.2 did not take any punitive action against the
Promoter for deliberately violating the provisions of the Act, 2010.
43. It is urged that in the present case, the Promoter has violated the
provisions of Section 5 (3) (a) of the Act, 2010 which requires consent
from all the apartment owners in case of change in the layout plan, and
has also violated Section 4 (5) of the Act, 2010 which cast a duty upon
the Promoter to obtain a completion certificate from the prescribed
sanctioning authority concerned as per the Building Bye-laws, and only
after that, the Promoter can transfer flats, but in the instant case, the
Promoter has transferred the flats without complying with the
requirement of obtaining completion certificate envisaged under Section
4 (5) of the Act, 2010.
44. It is submitted that multiple compounding of map is not permitted
under the Compounding Bye-laws. It is submitted that deviation from
map is an offence under Section 32 of the Act, 1973, which provides for
composition of offences. It is also urged that the Authority is not
empowered to compound the offences committed under the Act, 1973
multiple times under the aforesaid section, thereby, allowing the
illegality to perpetuate.
45. In other words, it is contended that multiple compounding of
offenses is not permitted under Section 32 of the Act, 1973 and the
Compounding Bye-laws framed under Section 57 (bb) of the Act, 1973,
therefore, the sanction of third compounding is per se illegal and without
jurisdiction.
46. It is also submitted that the compounding of map has been done in
violation of Compounding Bye-laws, 2009 inasmuch as the
uncompoundable offences under the Compounding Bye-laws has been
compounded by respondent no.2. It is also submitted that FAR has been
calculated by including the land owned by Indian Air Force, and if the
total area of Khasra nos.1034 & 1035, which comes to 2720 Sq. meters,
owned by Indian Air Force (Hindon) is excluded for the purpose of

15
WRIC No. - 21821 of 2025
calculating FAR, the FAR compounded in third compounding is in
excess of permissible FAR area, which is impermissible under law.
47. Sri Sanjeev Singh, learned Senior Counsel appearing in Writ-C
No.68187 of 2015 has contended that Promoter has sold the common
areas alongwith the ground floor flats, which is in complete violation of
Section 4 (5) of the Act, 2010. He further contends that the present case
is governed by the bye-laws of 1997, which does not provide for any
relaxation in permit.
48. Per contra, Sri Shashi Nandan, learned Senior Counsel appearing
for the respondents has contended that the writ petition on behalf of
individual apartment owner is not maintainable since there exists an
association, namely, Gulmohar Greens Residents Welfare Association
(GGRWA). Thus, he submits that the writ petition is not maintainable on
behalf of the petitioners and is liable to be dismissed on the ground of
their locus standi to prefer the present writ petition.
49. He further submits that under the approved original layout plan
dated 29.05.2006, 34 Towers having 904 dwelling units and one
Community Centre was sanctioned. However, the map was cancelled on
03.07.2010. It is submitted that 720 units were constructed by Promoter
till the date of cancellation of map. He contends that the reason for
cancellation of map was the title dispute between the Promoter and the
land owners.
50. He submits that after the title dispute was resolved, the Promoter
submitted an application for fresh sanction of 374 units and for
compounding of already constructed 720 units. He contends that 720
units were constructed under a valid sanctioned map as the aforesaid
units have been constructed before cancellation of original layout map
dated 29.05.2006. Thus, it is contended that 720 units cannot be termed
as ‘unauthorized construction’ as having been constructed under a
sanctioned layout plan.
51. He submits that after cancellation of original layout plan, no
further construction could be raised by the Promoter, and in the instant

16
WRIC No. - 21821 of 2025
case, after cancellation of original layout plan, the Promoter did not raise
any further construction. He further submits that as there is no violation
of Building Bye-laws, therefore, construction of 720 units is valid
construction under the sanctioned plan, therefore, the compounding of
said units has been rightly done by the respondent no. 2.
52. He further submits that as per available FAR, the Promoter could
construct 374 additional units, therefore, there is no illegality in the
sanction of first compounding dated 15.11.2011 granting permission to
the Promoter to construct 374 fresh units.
53. It is also urged that since there were certain deviations which were
compoundable, therefore, the Promoter submitted second compounding
map, and the Authority did not commit any illegality in issuing the
second compounding map as it was permissible because of the
availability of required FAR.
54. He further contends that the total number of sanctioned units
under the first compounding map was 1094, which number was not
changed nor there was any alteration in layout plan, therefore, the
respondent No.2 has acted within the framework of law in approving and
sanctioning the second compounding map.
55. He contends that it is evident from the prayer in the writ petition
that the petitioner has not prayed for quashing of first and second
compounding map, and in the absence of any specific prayer in this
regard, this Court cannot grant the relief of cancellation of first and
second compounding map.
56. As far as the third compounding dated 18.12.2024 is concerned, it
is evident that only two flats have been added in the earlier sanctioned
1094 flats, which is permissible as per the available FAR to the
Promoter, therefore, there is no illegality committed by the respondent
no.2 in sanctioning the third compounding map.
57. He further contends that the law does not prohibit multiple
compounding, and therefore, the Authority has not committed any error
in sanctioning the third compounding map.

17
WRIC No. - 21821 of 2025
58. It is vehemently contended that as per available FAR, the
Promoter could construct 1603 units whereas the Promoter had sought
approval to construct only 1096 units, and as such, there is neither any
reduction in the common area of apartment owners nor in the common
facility, therefore, provision of Section 5(3)(a) of the Act, 2010 is not
attracted in the instant case.
59. He further urges that so far as Regulation 3.2.10 of the
Compounding Bye-laws, 2009 relied upon by the learned counsel for the
petitioners to contend that addition of two floors in Tower Nos.16, 17, 18
& 19 is not compoundable is concerned, it is not applicable in cases of
Group Housing Scheme inasmuch as the said Regulation will apply only
in respect of plotted developments. Thus, it is contended that there is no
illegality in raising additional two floors in the aforesaid towers.
60. Shri Shivam Yadav, Advocate, in addition to the aforesaid
submissions of learned Senior Counsel for the respondent-Authority has
contended that it is evident from the stay order granted by this Court that
the petitioners have obtained stay order from this Court by placing
incorrect facts.
61. He further contends that there is no pleading in the writ petition
regarding the first and second compounding map. Further, no objection
has been raised by any residents of Tower nos.16, 17, 18 and 19, and
addition of two floors in the said towers did not prejudice any right of
the petitioners. Therefore, writ petition on behalf of petitioners is
misconceived and does not warrant any interference by this Court.
62. Further reliance is placed upon Regulations 2 (21), 5, 10, 13 & 15
of The Ghaziabad Development Authority Area Building Regulations,
2002 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Regulations, 2002’) to contend that
Regulations, 2002 permits the additions/alterations in the sanctioned
plan.
63. It is also urged by him that additions/alterations in the plan can be
done by the Promoter as many times as the need be, inasmuch as

18
WRIC No. - 21821 of 2025
Regulation, 2002 does not prohibit the alterations/additions in building
plan to only a limited number of times.
64. Accordingly, he submits that if the Regulation, 2002 permits the
alterations/additions in the layout plan any number of times, the
Promoter can make alterations/additions in the plan and get it
compounded as many times as required according to need.
65. Hence, it is submitted that the multiple compounding of map is
permissible under law, and since the alterations in the map had been
made within the permissible limit of FAR, therefore, respondent no.2 has
not committed any illegality in sanctioning the third compounding map.
66. We have considered the rival submissions advanced by the learned
counsel for the respective parties and perused the records of writ petition
and original record of respondent no.2.
67. Coming to the preliminary objection raised by the learned counsel
for the respondents with regard to locus standi of the petitioners to prefer
the present writ petition being individual flat owners, we may record that
respondents do not dispute that petitioners are the owners of flats in the
Gulmohar Greens Residential Society.
68. The petitioners have come up with a case that Promoter has not
taken their written consent as required under Section 5(3)(a) of the Act
2010, and since the change in layout by the Promoter and getting the
same compounded has resulted in reduction in the common area and
common facility of the petitioners, and has also resulted in reduction of
undivided interest in the land underneath the towers which is their vested
right under the condition no.3 of the sale deed, therefore, in our opinion,
they are aggrieved persons as their individual right vested in them by
virtue of Section 5 (3)(a) of the Act 2010 has been violated.
69. The Apex Court in the case of Jashbhai Motibhai Desai Vs.
Roshan Kumar, Haji Bashir Ahmed (1976) 1 SCC 671 has eloquently
explained ‘when a person has a locus standi to invoke extra ordinary
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India’. Paragraph
no.34 of the said judgement is being reproduced below:-

19
WRIC No. - 21821 of 2025
“34. This Court has laid down in a number of decisions that in order
to have the locus standi to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction under
Article 226, an applicant should ordinarily be one who has a personal
or individual right in the subject matter of the application, though in
the case of some of the writs like habeas corpus or quo warranto this
rule is relaxed or modified. In other words, as a general rule,
infringement of some legal right or prejudice to some legal interest
inhering in the petitioner is necessary to give him a locus standi in the
matter. (see State of Orissa v. Madan Gopal Rungta 1952 SCR 28;
Calcutta Gas Co. v. State of W.B. AIR 1962 SC 1044; Ram
Umeshwari Suthoo v. Member, Board of Revenue, Orissa (1967) 1
SCA 413; Gadda Venkateshwara Rao v. Government of A.P. AIR
1966 SC 828; State of Orissa v. Rajasaheb Chandanmall (1973) 3
SCC 739; Dr. Satyanarayana Sinha v. M/s. S. Lal & Co. (1973) 2
SCC 696.)”
70. In the case of A. Subash Babu Vs. State of A.P. and Another
reported in (2011) 7 SCC 616, the Apex Court has explained ‘aggrieved
person’ and has held as under:
“The expression ‘aggrieved person’ denotes an elastic and an elusive
concept. It cannot be confined within the bounds of a rigid, exact and
comprehensive definition. Its scope and meaning depends on diverse,
variable factors such as the content and intent of the statute of which
contravention is alleged, the specific circumstances of the case, the
nature and extent of the complainant's interest and the nature and
extent of the prejudice or injuries suffered by him.”
71. The Apex Court in the case of H. Anjanappa and Others Vs. A.
Prabhakar and Others AIR 2025 SC 924 has also explained the
expression ‘person aggrieved’ and has held in paragraph no.35 as under:-
“35. The expression ‘person aggrieved’ does not include a person
who suffers from a psychological or an imaginary injury; a person
aggrieved must, therefore, necessarily be one, whose right or
interest has been adversely affected or jeopardized (see : Shanti
Kumar R. Canji v. Home Insurance Co. of New York, (1974) 2

20
WRIC No. - 21821 of 2025
SCC 387 and State of Rajasthan and Ors. v. Union of India and
Ors., (1977) 3 SCC 592).”
72. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we do not find any substance
in the submission of learned counsel for the respondents regarding
maintainability of writ petition preferred by the petitioners. Therefore,
the judgement of Apex Court in the case of Supertech Limited Vs.
Emerald Court Owner Resident Welfare Association & Others (2021) 10
SCC 1 relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents does not
come to aid to the respondents.
73. Thus, we are of the view that petitioners have locus standi to file
the present writ petition and their writ petition is maintainable.
74. Now the first question which the Court proceeds to consider is
whether the multiple compoundings are permissible under the law; and
whether then respondent-Authority while compounding the first, second
and third compounding has strictly followed the necessary provisions
and rules in respect to compounding.
75. The original records indicate that the Promoter purchased 51
Khasras details of which are noted in the noting on the order sheet of the
original record and submitted a layout plan for constructing a Group
Housing. The noting of the Assistant Engineer dated 26-
( भू-अर्जन अनुo )
11-2005 is being reproduced below:-
“ सहायक अभियन्ता ( भू - अर्जन )
आपके उक्त स्वकीय आदेश दिनांक 18.11.05 के अनुपालन में अवगत कराना है कि
मैसर्स फ्रेंड्स लैंड्स डेवेलपर्स द्वारा राजस्व ग्राम करहेडा , परगना लोनी , तहसील व जिला
गाजियाबाद के खसरा नम्बर 955, 956, 957, 958, 959, 960, 1017, 1018,
1019, 1020, 1021, 1022, 1023, 1024, 1025, 1026, 1027, 1028,
1029,1030, 1031, 1032, 1033, 1034, 1035, 1036, 1037, 1038, 1039,
1040, 1041, 1042, 1043, 1044, 1045, 1046, 1048, 1049, 1050, 1051,
1052, 1053, 1054, 1055, 1056, 1057, 1058, 1059, 1060, 1061 कुल
खसरा नम्बरान 51 की 25.926 एकड़ भूमि पर मानचित्र स्वीकृति दाखि ल किया है।
उपरोक्त ग्राम करहेडा के सभी नम्बरानों का अर्जन अभी तक गाजियाबाद विकास
प्राधिकरण द्वारा नहीं कराया गया है।

21
WRIC No. - 21821 of 2025
स्वामित्व के सम्बन्ध में प्रार्थी कम्पनी द्वारा फर्द खतौनी वर्ष1412-1417 फसली की
दाखि ल की है। उक्त फर्द में उपरोक्त लिखे कुल 51 खसरा नम्बरान रकवा 8.7330
हेक्टेयर पर टाटा आईल मिल कम्पनी लिमिटेड द्वारा ब्रुश स्ट्रीट फोर्ट बम्बई का नाम
अंकित है। प्रार्थी कम्पनी द्वारा बैनामे की छायाप्रति दाखि ल की है जिसके मैसर्स फ्रेन्डस
लेण्डस डेवेलपर्स श्री अतुल गर्ग पुत्र श्री डी० सी ० गर्ग निवासी 58 जी०टी० रोड ,
गाजियाबाद मुख्य स्थान के०डी० -14 कविनगर गाजियाबाद का नाम लगभग 42.930
एकड़ पर बतौर क्रेता अंकित है। भू-उपयोग, उपयोगिता एवं आवश्यक्ता के सम्बन्ध में
आख्या सी०ए०टी० अनुभाग से प्राप्त की जानी वांछित है । इस 42.930 एकड़ भूमि में
से 25.926 एकड़ भूमि पर मानचित्र स्वकृति हेतु प्रस्तुत किए गये है। अग्रिम कार्यवाही
हेतु आख्या सेवा प्रेषित है।"
76. The aforesaid noting reveals that Promoter in support of his title
submitted Khatauni of Fasli year 1412-1417 and photocopy of sale
deeds. It further reveals that name of Tata Oil Mills Company Limited
was recorded in respect of aforesaid 51 Kharas.
77. The note sheet dated 29.05.2006 submitted by the C.A.T.P., Chief
Engineer and Secretary of Ghaziabad Development Authority to the Vice
Chairman records that for the purpose of calculation of FAR, total plot
area of all Khasras referred in the note sheet dated 26.11.2005 had been
taken. Relevant extract of the note sheet is being reproduced below:-
“ उपाध्यक्ष :
कृपया ग्राम करहेड़ा , लोनी , गाजियाबाद के खसरा नं 0 955, 956,957,958, 959,960,
1010, 1011,1014,1015,1017-1054, 1056-1061 के भू - भाग पर पक्ष मैसर्स फेन्ड्स
लैण्ड डवलपर्स द्वारा पार्टनर श्री अतुल गर्ग एवं श्री राकेश गर्ग द्वारा आवासीय ग्रुप हाऊसिंग
मानचित्र प्रस्ताव नवनिर्माण की स्वीकृति हेतु प्रस्तुत किया गया है जिसका अवलोकन करने का
कष्ट करें। प्रश्नगत खसरा नम्बरान के सम्बन्ध में भू-अर्जन अनुभाग की आख्या जो पृष्ठ संख्या 1
और 2 पर अंकित है, भी अवलोकनीय है। जिसके अनुसार उक्त खसरा नम्बरानों का अर्जन
अभी तक गाजियाबाद विकास प्राधिकरण द्वारा नहीं कराया गया है। उक्त क्रम में पक्ष द्वारा
तहसीलदार (सदर) गाजियाबाद का अनापत्ति प्रमाण पत्र प्रस्तुत किया है जिसके अनुसार
संदर्भित भूमि पर खसरा सं0 1055 की 0.0760 है० भूमि को छोड़कर (जो ग्राम समाज/नगर
निगम की भूमि उल्लेखि त है।) मैसर्स फेन्ड्स लैण्ड डवलपर्स का स्वामित्व उल्लेखि त है भू-
उपयोग के सम्बन्ध में आख्या नियोजन अनुभाग से ले ली गयी है जो कि पत्रावली में पृष्ट संख्या
4 पर अंकित है जिसमें शासनादेश संख्या सी.एम. 15/8-3-2006-14 महा/2005 दिनांक

22
WRIC No. - 21821 of 2025
21.4.2006 के क्रम में प्रस्तुत प्रकरण में भू-उपयोग परिवर्तन की कार्यवाही न किये जाने का
औचित्य स्पष्ट रूप से उल्लेखि त है।
संदर्भित स्थल लोनी रोड (दो तरफ मुख्य मार्गों) गाजियाबाद पर स्थि त है। आवेदक द्वारा प्रस्तुत
मानचित्र में मोहननगर चौराहे से हिन्डन एअर फोर्स स्टेशन चौराहे को मिलाने वाली रोड पर
स्थि त साईड में मुख्य मार्ग हेतु रोड बाईडिनिंग हेतु भूमि छोड़ते हुए प्रस्तावना दी गयी है रोड़
बाईडिनिंग की भूमि पर आवेदक द्वारा कम्पनसेंट्री एफ.ए. आर. की मांग की गई है तथा
आवेदक द्वारा इस आशय का शपथ पत्र दिया गया है कि भविष्य में इस मार्ग का विस्तार किया
जाता है तो मेरे द्वारा निःशुल्क भूमि स्थानान्तरित कर दी जायेगी, इस आशय का शपथ पत्र
पत्रावली पर संलग्न है। लोक निर्माण विभाग, उ०प्र० का अनापत्ति प्रमाण पत्र मानचित्र निर्गत
होने से पूर्व प्रस्तुत करना होगा।
अतः उपरोक्त क्रम में प्रस्तुत ग्रुप हाऊसिंग मानचित्र के सम्बन्ध में तकनीकी आख्या व अन्य
विवरण निम्नवत् है : -
Total Plot Area = 87330 Sqm.
Area under Road Widening = 1042.47 Sqm.
Net Plot Area = 86287.53 Sqm.”
78. Thereafter, the Vice Chairman approved the plan for construction
of 34 Towers on 29.05.2006. The details of each Tower sanctioned under
29.05.2006 layout plan have been given in paragraph no.9 of this
judgement.
79. The Promoter after obtaining sanction to layout plan started
raising construction. However, it transpires from the record that Group
Captain Sri B. Bhatanagar from Hindon Air Base by Letter No.
028303/S.200/1/WKS dated 02.02.2007 and Letter dated 14.06.2007
informed the Development Authority that Khasra nos.1034, 1035, 1051,
1054, 1058, 1060, 1061 and 1063 had been acquired by the Defence
Ministry and requested the Development Authority to stop construction
on the aforesaid Khasras and remove the construction existing on the
aforesaid Khasras.

23
WRIC No. - 21821 of 2025
80. In view of the aforesaid objection, Assistant Engineer submitted a
noting to the City Planner requesting for taking actions as stated in the
said noting. Relevant extract of the noting is reproduced herein below:-
“उपरोक्त से स्पष्ट है कि वर्तमान में प्रश्नगत प्रकरण पर निम्न कार्यवाही आपेक्षित है :-
1. सर्वप्रथम हिन्डन एयर फोर्स की भूमि सम्बन्धी विवाद का निस्तारण किया जाना आवश्यक
है उसके उपरान्त ही किसी भी प्रकार की कार्यवाही किया जाना उचित होगा अर्थात जबतक
हिन्डन एयर फोर्स से विनिन्न खसरों के स्वामित्व के सम्बन्ध में निर्णय नहीं हो जाता है तबतक
विवादित भूमि पर किसी प्रकार का निर्माण कार्य न किया जाये तथा यदि निर्माण कार्य किया
गया है तो उसे तत्काल हटा दिया जाये। हिन्डन एयर फोर्स के भू - स्वामित्व विवाद के सम्बन्ध
में अर्जन विभाग से भी राय लिया जाना उचित होगा।
2. विन्दु संख्या-1 के क्रियावचन के उपरान्त सर्वप्रथम आन्तरिक विकास शुल्क की बैंक
गारन्टी का नवीनीकरण प्रस्तुत करना होगा।
3. बिन्दु संख्या 1 व 2 के निस्तारण के साथ-साथ पक्ष को पुनः स्मारक पत्र भेजा जाना उचित
होगा कि भू-उपयोग परिवर्तन शुल्क शासनादेशों के क्रम में प्रश्नगत प्रकरण में वापिस किये
जाने का प्राविधान नहीं है।
कृपया उपरोक्तानुसार सूचनार्थ एवं आदेशार्थ नगर नियोजक महोदय को अग्रसारित करने का
कष्ट करें।"
81. It transpires that thereafter, notice has been issued to the Promoter
seeking an explanation about the title dispute, but when the Promoter did
not respond to the notice, a noting addressed to Assistant Engineer was
prepared and forwarded by S.K. Tiwari, Junior Engineer, Mohd.
Naseem, Junior Engineer, Ghanshyam Verma, Junior Engineer,, N.K.
Chowdhary, Assistant Engineer asking for issuing an order for
cancellation of the map. The noting dated 22.06.2010 is being
reproduced herein below:-
“सहायक अभियन्ता
कृपया पत्रावली के नोटशीट क्रमांक 40 व 41 पर प्रेषित आख्या का अवलोकन करने
का कष्ट करें। उक्त आख्या दिनांक 29.01.10 के क्रम में पक्ष को उपाध्यक्ष महोदय
द्वारा क्रमशः पत्र सं0 338/मा० प्ला०/10 दिनांक 08.02.10 व अनुस्मारक सं0
548/मा०प्ला०/10 दिनांक 18.05.10 भेजा जा चुका है। उक्त क्रम में पक्ष द्वारा
दिनांक 10.06.2010 तक का समय दिये जाने सम्बन्धी अनुरोध किया गया था, परन्तु

24
WRIC No. - 21821 of 2025
पक्ष द्वारा अधतन कोई भी कार्यवाही नहीं की गई है। इससे स्पस्ट है कि पक्ष द्वारा
प्रकरण को अनावश्यक रूप से विलम्बि त कर निर्माण पूर्ण करने का प्रयास किया जा
रहा है। कृपया मानचित्र को उ०प्र० नगर योजना एवं विकास अधिनियम की धारा 15 (
) के अन्तर्गत निरस्त करने व निर्माण को सील करने के आदेश प्रवर्तन अनुभाग को ए
दिये जाने के आदेशार्थ पत्रावली प्रस्तुत है। "
82. It appears that thereafter layout plan dated 29.05.2006 was
cancelled on 03.07.2010. It further transpires from the record that the
building was sealed. However, according to respondent no. 2, thereafter,
an application was filed by the Promoter for compounding of map.
83. According to respondents, till the date of cancellation of map, the
Promoter had constructed 720 dwelling units, whereas 904 dwelling
units were sanctioned. After the cancellation of map, according to
respondents, the Promoter submitted first compounding map with 374
additional dwelling units. Thus, total number of dwelling units as per the
first compounding plan was 1094 units.
84. We asked learned counsel for the respondent no.2 to show the
order of cancellation of map dated 03.07.2010. We also inquired from
him whether any legal remedy was availed by the Promoter against the
order of cancellation of map, and also as to whether the order of
cancellation of map was set aside or any permission was granted by the
competent authority to file fresh application, however, the learned
counsel for the respondents informed that the order of cancellation dated
03.07.2010 is not traceable in the original record. He further informed
that record does not indicate that any remedy in law had been availed by
the Promoter against the cancellation order dated 03.07.2010.
85. We also inquired from the counsel for the respondent- Authority to
place the application along with first compounding map submitted by the
Promoter before the Court to ascertain the prayer of the Promoter in the
said application. Learned counsel for the respondent no.2 informed that
any such application is also not available in the original record.

25
WRIC No. - 21821 of 2025
86. We have also perused the original records and we also could not
find the order dated 03.07.2010 cancelling the map and the application
submitted by the Promoter along with first compounding map seeking
the compounding on record. However, the first compounding map was
sanctioned on 15.11.2011. In the first compounding map, number of
dwelling units was increased from 984 to 1094.
87. The perusal of the first compounding map would indicate that the
Promoter has made substantial changes in the first compounding from
original layout.
88. The Development Authority in the counter affidavit has filed the
noting addressed to J.S(M)/CATP. The said noting reveals that the
Promoter had submitted ‘No Objection Certificate’ in respect to land in
dispute from UPSIDC, and thereafter, the total area of land was
increased from 87330.00 Sq. meter to 87930 Sq meter.
89. Perusal of the said noting does not reveal that the Promoter has
also resolved the title dispute with the Indian Air Force. The relevant
extract of noting dated 02.11.2011 appearing on page-55, annexed as
Annexure-5 to the counter affidavit of Ghaziabad Development
Authority is reproduced herein-below:-
“ प्रश्नगत भूखण्ड का मानचित्र पूर्व में संख्या 568/THA/GH/08 दिनांक 29.05.2006 द्वारा
भूखण्ड क्षेत्रफल 87330.00 वर्गमीटर बहुखण्डीय भवनों हेतु स्वीकृत था परन्तु भूस्वामित्व
सम्बन्धी विवाद होने के कारण उपाध्यक्ष महोदय के आदेश दिनांक 03.07.2010 द्वारा दी
गई स्वीकृति निरस्त की जा चुकी है। पक्ष द्वारा स्थल पर किये गये अनाधिकृत निर्माण के
विरुद्ध प्रवर्तन अनुभाग द्वारा नियमानुसार उ०प्र० नगर योजना एवं विकास अधिनियम 1973
की धारा 27 व 28 की कार्यवाही पूर्व में दिनांक 15.02.2010 को की गयी थी जिसके क्रम
में पक्ष द्वारा भूस्वामित्व सम्बन्धी विवाद समाप्त करते हुये यू०पी०एस०आई०डी०सी० से
समायोजन कर अर्जन एवं तहसील से अनापत्ति प्राप्त करते हुये भूखण्ड क्षेत्रफल87930.00
वर्ग मीटर पर किये गये निर्माण, प्रस्तावित निर्माण, स्वीकृति हेत मानचित्रप्रस्तुत किया गया है।
भूस्वामित्व सम्बन्धी विस्तृत विवरण पृष्ठ संख्या 63 व 64 पर अराजी संख्या व क्षेत्रफल
सहित अवलोकनार्थ उपलब्ध है। चूंकि पक्ष द्वारा पूर्व स्वीकृति के क्रम में आंशिक निर्माण कर
लिया गया है जिसे शमन हेतु आवेदन किया गया है। चूंकि मानचित्र निरस्त है अतः किये गये

26
WRIC No. - 21821 of 2025
निर्माणका शमन अनुमन्य परन्तु बिना स्वीकति मानते हुये गणना की जा रही है। उपविभाजन
एवं मानचित्र हेतु सुविधाओं सहित अन्य समस्त देय शुल्क की गणना मानचित्र अनुभाग
द्वारा किया जायेगा।"
90. After the aforesaid noting, the compounding calculation has been
recorded.
91. Perusal of the first compounding map reveals that the Promoter
has made substantial change in the layout plan inasmuch as in the
original layout plan, the Promoter had obtained sanction in respect to 34
Towers having 904 dwelling units, whereas in the first compounding
layout plan, the Promoter has sought compounding of 720 apartments
constructed till cancellation of sanctioned plan on 03.07.2010 and
construction of additional 374 units.
92. In the first compounding layout, the Promoter has shown Tower
no.2 (B+G+8), Tower no.3 (B+G+8), Tower no.4 (B+G+8), Tower no.5
(B+G+8), Tower no.6 (B+G+8), Tower no.7 (B+G+8), Tower no.8
(B+G+8), Tower no.9 (B+G+8), Tower no.10 (B+G+8), Tower no.11
(B+G+8), Tower no.12 (B+G+8), Tower no.12A (B+G+8), Tower no.14
(B+G+8), Tower no.15 (B+G+8), Tower no.24 (B+G+8), Tower no.25
(B+G+8), Tower no.26 (B+G+8), Tower no.30 (B+G+8), Tower no.31
(B+G+8), Tower no.32 (B+G+8), Tower no.33 (B+G) & Tower no.34
(B+G) as existing Towers.
93. He has also shown in the first compounding layout Tower no.16
(B+G+8), Tower no.17 (B+G+8), Tower no.18 (B+G+8), Tower no.19
(B+G+8), Tower no.27 (B+G+3), Tower no.28 (B+G+6), Tower no.29
(B+G+3), Tower no.33 (B+G+8) [B+G (existing)] , Tower no.34 (First to
+ 8 (proposed) [B+G (existing)], Tower no.35 (B+G+8) (proposed)
[B+G (existing)], Tower no.36 (B+G+3), Tower no.37 (B+G+3), Tower
no.38 (B+G+4), Tower no.39 (B+G+4) as proposed Towers for
construction.
94. It appears that after the first compounding, the Promoter in
addition to 720 units, could construct only 264 units and has made

27
WRIC No. - 21821 of 2025
further deviation from the first compounding map which resulted into
the consumption of extra FAR with respect to areas such as balcony etc.
Therefore, the Promoter again submitted second compounding map in
which construction of two additional floors in Tower nos. 33, 34, 35
thereby raising the said towers from eight floors to ten floors have been
sought to be regularized by second compounding which was sanctioned
by second compounding on 13.01.2015.
95. After the second compounding map, the Promoter could construct
total 984 units. The Promoter, thereafter, submitted a third compounding
th th
map for compounding two additional floors (9 & 10 ) in Tower nos.16,
17, 18 & 19 total 32 units, two additional Tower nos. 27 & 28 (G+4
each, 8 units per floor). According to respondents, after the third
compounding, total FAR consumed is 1,42,092.84 Sq. meter which is
less than permissible FAR 1,42,430.21 Sq. meter.
96. It appears that when the third compounding application was filed
by the Promoter, an objection was raised by the respondent no.2 that the
Promoter has not obtained ‘NOC’ from the Indian Air Force. In response
to the said objection, the Promoter had written letter dated 1/2.06.2021
to the respondent no.2, which was received by the respondent no.2 on
02.06.2021, wherein the Promoter has stated that the Air Force had taken
possession over the land over which the Indian Air Force has ownership.
Therefore, there is no need of ‘NOC’ from Indian Air Force Station for
the purpose of compounding of project. The letter dated 1/2.06.2021 is
being reproduced below:-
“To
The Vice Chairman
Ghaziabad Development Authority
Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh, India
Subject: Regarding compounding of Gulmohur Greens project, 95,
Katori Mill, Mohan Nagar, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh
Respected Madam,
We had applied for compounding of the project but due to an
observation from GDA authority that one NOC from the Hindon

28
WRIC No. - 21821 of 2025
Airforce station has not been obtained from us, therefore, due to which
the compounding has not been done by GDA.
In this regard, we wish to inform you that the land on which Hindon
Air Force Station has its ownership and possession, with the assistance
of district administration Ghaziabad, the Hindon Air Force Station has
taken the charge over the said land and now, there is no such need of
any NOC from Hindon Air Force Station regarding the purpose for the
compounding of the project. Further, after taking the possession over
the said land, the Hindon Air Force Station authority has created a
boundary wall over the said land and affix therein a sign board
regarding the possession over the said land with Hindon Air Force
Station.
Therefore, as there is no need of NOC now, therefore, we are
requesting you to compound the said project.”
97. It is evident from the noting on the note sheet for recommending
third compounding appearing on page-82 of the counter affidavit that
encroachment in set back of common area have been done which has not
been included for the purposes of calculation. Relevant extract of the
noting is being reproduced below:-
" सहायक अभियन्ता
कृपया दांयी ओर संलग्न मै० फैण्डस् लैण्ड डवलपर्स प्रा०लि० द्वारा खसरा सं0-955 से 960,
1010, 1011, 1015, 1017 से 1051, ग्राम करहेड़ा, 95. कटोरी मिल पर निर्मित ग्रुप
हाउसिंग पर स्वीकृत निर्माण से अतिरिक्त निर्माण को शमन करने का अनुरोध किया है।
प्रश्नगत प्रकरण के सम्बन्ध में अवगत कराना है कि उपरोक्त भूमि पर पूर्व में स्वीकृत मानचित्र
सं0-568/टी.एच.ए./जी.एच./06 दिनांक 29.05.06 के विरुद्ध किये गये निर्माण, जिसमें
टावर सं0-2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 12ए, 14, 15, 24, 25, 26, 30, 31,
32, 33, 34, (बेसमेन्ट+भूतल) व कम्यूनिटी एवं शॉप का निर्माण कर शमन
दिनांक-15.11.11 एवं दॉवर सं0 33, 34, 35 (बेसमेन्ट ग्राउण्ड 10वीं तल) व टावर सं 0-
16, 17, 18 व 19 के अन्तर्गत ( ग्राउण्ड +8) फ्लोर तक निर्माण पूर्ण कर शमन दिनाक
13.01.15 को कराया गया है। पूर्व स्वीकृत / शमनित के अतिरिक्त टावर सं 0-27 व 28 के
अन्तर्गत ( बेसमेन्ट + ग्राउण्ड +4 फ्लोर ) के अन्तर्गत प्रत्येक टावर में 40+40=80 यूनिट्स तथा।
टॉवर सं 0-16, 17, 18 व 19 के अन्तर्गत 9 वें व 10 वें फ्लोर का अतिरिक्त निर्माण करते हुए
32 फ्लैट्स अर्थात कुल 112 यूनिट्स के शमन हेतु आवेदन दिनांक -19.11.2024 को किया

29
WRIC No. - 21821 of 2025
गया है। इनके द्वारा शमन हेतु निर्धारित प्रारूप पर दो शपथ पत्र प्रस्तुत नहीं किया गया है।
यहाँ यह भी अवगत कराना है कि प्रश्नगत ग्रुप हाउसिंग निर्माण पर पूर्व में किये गये अतिरिक्त
निर्माण को शमन कराने हेतु पूर्व में भी विकासकर्ता द्वारा लगातार अनुरोध किया गया है ,
लेकिन स्थल पर सैट बैंक / कॉमन एरिया में किये गये अतिक्रमण के कारण शमन की
कार्यवाही पूर्ण नहीं की जा सकी। उपरोक्त निर्माण के शमन हेतु उपाध्यक्ष महोदय द्वारा
सचिव महोदय की अध्यक्षता में दिनांक -21.03.2024 को समिति गठित की गयी है , जिन
टावरों के कॉमन एरिया में अतिक्रमण किया गया है , उन्हें वर्तमान प्रस्ताव में शामिल नहीं
किया गया है।"
98. The calculation of FAR for the purpose of third compounding
appearing on page-84 of the counter affidavit of respondent no.2 reveals
that the total plot area which had been taken for calculation of FAR was
87930.00 Sq. Meter. It is evident from the note sheet dated 26.11.2005
that calculation of total plot area 87330 Sq. Meter includes the area of
eight Kharsas i.e. Khasra Nos.1034, 1035, 1051, 1054, 1058, 1060, 1061
& 1063 acquired by Indian Air Force and were not owned by the
Promoter. It is reiterated at the cost of repetition that total area of plot
was later on enhanced to 87930 Sq. Meter after the execution of
exchange deed by the Promoter with UPSIDC. The total area of
aforesaid eight Khasras owned by Hindon Air Force is 4560 Sq. Meter
which is evident from the note sheet of the original record of the
Development Authority appearing on page-38 & 39 reproduced in
paragraph no.130 of the judgement.
99. The Promoter has also admitted in his letter dated 1/2.06.2021 that
Indian Air Force has taken possession over the land. In such view of the
fact, 4560 Sq. Meter of the aforesaid eight Khasras owned by the Indian
Air Force should have been excluded by the respondent no.2 for
calculation of FAR etc., therefore, the calculation shown in the note
sheet appearing on page-84 of the counter affidavit of respondent no.2 is
patently erroneous. For convenience, the table under the heading
'स्वीकृत
मानचित्र is
-2011/शमन मानचित्र-2015 एवं वर्त्तमान में प्रस्तावित शमन का विवरण'
being reproduced below:-
Sl Particulars Permissible Sanctioned Compounded Now to be Up to Date Remark

30
WRIC No. - 21821 of 2025
Compounded
No. of Items 2011 in 2015
Achieved
(2024)
(2024)
1 Plot Area - 87930.00 87930.00 87930.00 87930.00 4110.72
Sqm
Road
Widenin
Road
2 - 4110.72 4110.72 - -
Widening
g area
left for
15%
3 12572.89 12572.89 12572.89 12572.89 12572.89
Green
future
use on
Net Plot
4 - 71246.39 71246.39 71246.39 71246.39
Area
the
Master
FAR @
1.5
(at
71246.39
m2)
plan
report
on the
5
106869.58 106869.58 - - -
note
sheet
no- 116
Purchasab
6 35560.63 35560.63 - - -
le FAR
dt 26-
06-15
11169.86
(T-16,17=165
4.86),
(T-18=776.94
130922.68
(100395.46+
),
(T-19=776.94
Total FAR
142430.21 142430.21
(5+6) =
142092.54
30527.22)
),
(T-27=3980.5
6) &
(T-28=2980.5
6)
9th & 10th
Floor of
tower no. 16,
7 Towers - 35 25
17, 18,19 &
B+G+4 Floor
25 + 2 = 27
of Tower 27
& 28
8 Non FAR
Basement 74442.47 68067.15 45449.19 2942.00 48391.19
Mumty - 1219.83 1008.68 104.60 1113.28
Machine
- 372.30 257.80 - 257.80
Room
Fire Stair
- 5679.49 4149.20 193.36 4342.56
Case
Total = - 75338.77 50864.87 3239.96 54104.83
ESS
- - - 95.00 95.00
Platform
Guard
- - - 19.26 19.26
Room
H.T. - - - 24.00 24.00

31
WRIC No. - 21821 of 2025
Meter
Room
L.T
Pannel
Room
- - - 122.30 122.30
54104.8
3+95+
19.26+
24+122.
Total = - - - 3500.52 54365.39
30
Ground
Coverage
(35%)
9
24936.23 18536.515 14747.78 1610.00 16357.78
10 Units 1603.00 1094.00 984.00 112.00 1096.00 Provid
ed
1359
Parking
(For 1096
Flats)
1358 ECS
- 1224 ECS 134 ECS 1358 ECS.
(Required)
11
ECS
(1160
ECS in
Basem
ent 199
Height in
12 27 25.5 32.75 32.45 32.75
meter
ECS in
Open)
Required
13
Set Back
Front 9.00 9.00 11.00 11.00 11.00
Rear 9.00 9.00 11.00 11.00 11.00
Side-1 9.00 9.00 11.00 11.00 11.00
Side-2 9.00 9.00 11.00 11.00 11.00
Total
Built up
Area
14
217768.995 181787.55 14670.38 196457.93
100. The details at serial no.7 in the aforesaid table shows that the
th th
Promoter has sought compounding of 9 & 10 floor of Tower nos.16,
17, 18 & 19 & addition of two towers i.e. Tower nos.27 & 28 having
B+G+4 floor.
101. The third compounding application was approved by respondent
no.2 on 18.12.2024. Under the third compounding, two additional floors
th th
(9 & 10 ) in Tower nos. 16, 17, 18 & 19 ( total 32 units) were raised,
and two additional Towers i.e. Tower nos. 27 & 28 (G+4 each, 8 units
per floor) i.e. 80 units in all were compounded.

32
WRIC No. - 21821 of 2025
102. Regulation 2 (21) of Regulation, 2002 defines ‘Layout’ which
reads as under:-
“2 Definitions-
(21) ‘Layout Plan’-A plan of the entire site showing location of
plots/building blocks, roads, open spaces, entry/exits, parking,
landscaping etc. indicating the activity for all land parcels.”
103. Regulation 5 of Regulation, 2002 provides for ‘Application for
building permit’
104. Regulation 10 of Regulation, 2002 deals with ‘Sanction or refusal
of building permit’.
105. Regulation 13 & 15 of Regulation, 2002 have been heavily relied
upon by the learned counsel for the respondents in support of their
argument that the aforesaid Regulation permits the Promoter to make
any addition or alteration in the layout plan.
106. For convenience, Regulations 13 & 15 of Regulation, 2002 are
being reproduced herein-below:-
“13. Additions or alterations during construction. If any external
additions or alterations from the sanctioned plans are intended to be
made, permission of the Chief Executive Officer shall be obtained in
writing before the proposed additions/alterations are carried out. It
shall be incumbent upon the applicant to whom a building permit has
been sanctioned to submit amended plans for such additions or
alterations. The provisions relating to an application for permit shall
also apply to such amended plans with modification that the time
limit referred to in Regulation 10 (ii) shall be thirty days.”
“15. Work to be carried out in full accordance of Zoning
Regulations, Building Regulations and Directions.-Neither the
granting of the permit nor the approval of the drawings and
specification, nor inspection made by the Authority during erection of
the building shall in any way relieve the owner of such building from
full responsibility for carrying out the work in accordance with the

33
WRIC No. - 21821 of 2025
requirements of Zoning Regulations of Master Plan, these
Regulations or Planning and Development Directions. In case any
violations are found during construction or after obtaining completion
the owner shall be required to rectify the same to the satisfaction of
the Authority within a period of 15 days from the time such violations
are intimated to the owner. In case the owner fails to comply, the
Authority shall ensure compliance and the expenditure incurred on
doing so shall be recovered from the owner before issue of
completion certificate. In case completion certificate has already been
obtained, such expenditure shall be recovered from the owner, if not
paid within stipulated time, as arrears of land revenue.”
107. A reading of Regulation 13 discloses that if the Promoter intends
to make any external addition or alteration from the sanctioned plan, the
Promoter shall obtain permission from the Chief Executive Officer
before the proposed additions/alterations are carried out.
108. It further cast a duty upon the Promoter to whom building permit
has been sanctioned to submit amended plan for such additions or
alterations.
109. In Regulation 13 of Regulation, 2002, the word ‘proposed
additions/alterations are carried out’ is preceded by the word ‘before’
which means the Promoter has to obtain permission in advance or prior
for carrying out proposed additions/alterations. In other words, the
Promoter cannot execute the structural modification first and seek
approval retroactively, he is legally required to secure formal permission
in advance.
110. Learned counsel for the Development Authority has placed
Regulation 2.1.7 of Building Bye-laws which reads as under:
2.1.7 “ विकास के समय विचलन - विकास के दौरान यदि स्वीकृत प्लान में कोई
विचलन है या विचलन कि या जाना अभिप्रेत है , तो प्रस्तावित विचलन निष्पादित
करने के पूर्व प्राधिकरण से अनुज्ञा प्राप्त की जाएगी। "

34
WRIC No. - 21821 of 2025
111. Regulation 2.1.7 also casts an obligation upon the Promoter to
obtain prior sanction/permission before carrying out any
alteration/deviation in the layout plan.
112. So in order to take the benefit of Regulation 13 and Regulation
2.1.7 of Building Bye-laws, an obligation is cast upon the Promoter to
obtain permission from the Chief Executive Officer in writing before the
proposed additions or alterations are carried out.
113. For obtaining such permission from the Chief Executive Officer,
the Promoter to whom permit has been granted shall submit amended
plan for such additions or alterations.
114. We have perused the compliance affidavit and counter affidavit
filed by the Promoter as well as counter affidavit filed by the
Development Authority. We do not find any pleading with regard to fact
that the Promoter in this case had submitted amended plan seeking
additions or alterations in the plan before carrying out the additions or
alterations, nor we find any pleading in the affidavits and counter
affidavit filed by the Promoter that the Promoter had obtained
permission from the Chief Executive Officer in respect to external
additions or alterations in the plan. There is nothing which indicates
either in the Court records or the original records of the Authority that
the Promoter had submitted an amended plan to the Chief Executive
Officer seeking external additions or alterations in the layout before
carrying out any alteration nor there is anything on record indicating that
the Chief Executive Officer has ever granted permission to the Promoter
before he carried out the proposed alterations.
115. In absence of compliance of necessary conditions envisaged in
Regulation 13 of Regulation, 2002 justifying the alterations/additions in
the plan, the Promoter cannot take shelter of Regulation 13 that the said
Regulation permits the Promoter to make addition or alteration in the
plan any number of times, as the Promoter desires.
116. Reading of Regulation 15 of Regulation, 2002 suggests that the
Promoter is under obligation to carry out the work in accordance with

35
WRIC No. - 21821 of 2025
the requirement of zoning regulations of master plan, these Regulations
i.e. Regulation, 2002 or Planning and Development directions. Much
emphasis has been laid by learned counsel for the Promoter on the
second part of Regulation 15 which permit the Promoter to rectify any
violations of these Regulations occurred during the construction or after
completion to the satisfaction of the authority within a period of 15 days
from the time, such violations are intimated to the Promoter.
117. Regulation 15 permits the Promoter or the owner only minor
violations of these Regulations i.e. Regulation, 2002, but under the garb
of leave to the Promoter under Regulation15 to rectify such violation to
the satisfaction of the Authority within a period of 15 days from the time
such violations are intimated to the owner cannot be construed to mean
that it permits the Promoter/owner to make any external addition or
alteration from the sanctioned plan without complying with the
requirement of Regulation 13.
118. If the interpretation given by learned counsel for the respondent is
accepted, that would render Regulation 13, which mandates the
Promoter/Developer to obtain prior permission in writing from the Chief
Executive Officer for making any external addition or alteration from
the sanctioned plan ineffective or otiose .
119. The law is settled that provision in a Statute should be interpreted
in a manner so as to achieve the purpose and object of such provision in
the Statute/Regulation. Therefore, if the promote/developer/owner
intends to make any external addition or alteration from the sanctioned
plan, he has to obtain prior permission from the Chief Executive Officer
for making such external addition or alteration, and he cannot resort to
Regulation 15 which permits minor violations of these Regulations to
contend that he can do so as many times as needed. Therefore,
Regulation 15 is of no help to the Promoter in the present case.
120. It will not be out of place to mention that admittedly in the instant
case, the sanction layout dated 29.05.2006 was cancelled and same was
not challenged in any legal proceeding by the Promoter.

36
WRIC No. - 21821 of 2025
121. Though, there is no order of cancellation of map on record, but the
noting on the file of original record suggest that the original file in
relation to sanction of map was forwarded for issuing cancellation order,
therefore, we presume that cancellation order must have been issued and
served upon the Promoter. It may be that the cancellation order has been
misplaced from the record.
122. The record does not reflect that any proceeding for setting aside
the cancellation order of map was initiated by the Promoter, therefore,
cancellation order still survives.
123. Sri Shashi Nandan, learned Senior Counsel has submitted that
since 720 units out of 904 units under the sanctioned layout plan dated
29.05.2006 were constructed under a valid sanction order, therefore,
cancellation of such sanction order would not make the said construction
unauthorized or illegal because Promoter has not deviated from the
building bye-laws and had constructed the said units strictly in
accordance with the approved layout dated 29.05.2006. Therefore, even
if the cancellation order has not been set aside, the Development
Authority can compound the map.
124. We do not concur with the aforesaid contention of the learned
Senior Counsel for two reasons; firstly, the aforesaid contention is
against the record inasmuch as B+G+7 in Tower nos. 3 to 12, Tower
nos.14 & 15, and B+G+6 in Tower nos.24 to 26 & Tower nos. 30 to 32
were sanctioned in the original layout whereas the Promoter had
deviated from the aforesaid sanction and constructed B+G+8 in all the
aforesaid Towers, thereby, adding one additional floor in Tower nos.3 to
12, Tower nos.14 & 15 and two additional floors in Tower nos. 24 to 26
and Tower nos.30 to 32. He has further made deviations in Tower nos.33
& 34 inasmuch as he has constructed B+G whereas as per original
layout, Tower nos.33 & 34 had sanction of B+G+6. We have detailed
the number of sanctioned Towers and specification of each Tower as per
original layout plan dated 29.05.2006 in paragraph no.9 of the judgement
and details of existing level of the aforesaid Towers in first compounding

37
WRIC No. - 21821 of 2025
map in paragraph no.13 of the judgement. Therefore, the aforesaid
contention of Sri Shashi Nandan is against the record.
125. Secondly, the sanctioned map dated 29.05.2006 was issued subject
to various conditions, and one such condition was that title of the land
over which the construction is proposed should be clear and not
disputed.
126. Chapter-II of the Building Bye-laws deals with the condition for
grant of permission for development.
127. Regulation 2.1.2 provides for and Regulation
‘सूचनाएं एवं दस्तावेज '
2.1.2.2 provides for the documents and information to be submitted by
the Promoter. Regulation 2.1.2.2 of Chapter-II of Building Bye-laws
reads as under:-
“ 2.1.2.2 अन्य क्षेत्रों/योजनाओं में- आवेदन पत्र यथास्थि ति निम्नलिखि त सूचनाओं और
दस्तावेजों के साथ जमा किया जाएगा:—
(I) आवेदक के स्वामित्व समर्थक दस्तावेज की प्रति या रजिस्ट्रीकृत विलेख।
(II) साइट प्लान (जिसमें भू-खण्ड संख्या और क्षेत्रफल/भवन की संख्या, गाँव, मोहल्ला का
नाम, आदि का उल्लेख होगा)।
(III) नजूल अथवा इम्प्रूवमेन्ट ट्रस्ट की भूमि होने की दशा में सम्बन्धि त विभाग से फ्री-होल्ड
डीड अथवा अनापत्ति प्रमाण-पत्र।"
128. Regulation 2.1.2.2 (i) states that the applicant shall have to submit
the document relating to title or registered sale deed.
129. In the instant case, the sanctioned layout was cancelled because
the title of Promoter with respect to Khasra nos.1034, 1035,1051, 1054,
1058, 1060, 1061 & 1063 was disputed as the land comprised in the
aforesaid Khasra numbers is owned by the Indian Air Force. Therefore,
we are of the view that even if when 720 units were constructed by the
Promoter, the approved plan dated 29.05.2006 was in existence, but once
it had been cancelled because of fault of the Promoter for non-disclosing
the correct information with regard to the title of land, such construction
cannot said to be authorised or valid construction.

38
WRIC No. - 21821 of 2025
130. The noting on the file of the Development Authority, which have
been extracted above, shows that the total plot area before the approval
of map on 29.5.2006 was 87330 Sq. meter which included the area of
plots of Khasra nos.1034, 1035,1051, 1054, 1058, 1060, 1061 & 1063.
However, inclusion of aforesaid Khasras has been objected by Indian Air
Force.
131. When the objection was raised by the Air Force, the Promoter had
filed Khatauni for the Fasli Year 1412-1417 showing that the name of
M/s Tata Oil Mill Company Limited in respect to aforesaid Khasra
numbers had been deleted and in its place name of M/s Friends and Land
Developers, 14 Kavi Nagar Ghaziabad through its partner Atul Garg had
been recorded on 27.09.2010. The contents of order under which the
name of Promoter has been recorded in Khatauni as Fasli Year 1412-
1417 is reproduced herein-below:-
“1418-फ. आदेश श्रीमान तहसीलदार गाजियाबाद मि.न. 1149/10/ 20.9.10 को आदेश
हुआ कि खाता न. 220 के खसरा न. 957मि./0.1490, 958मि./0.2910,
964मि./0.0130, 1010मि./0.1640, 1015मि./0.0510, 1017मि./0.0650,
1018मि./0.2530, 1019/0.0130, 1021मि./0.5440, 1022मि./0.5310,
1023/0.5310, 1038/0.4680, 1039/0.215, 1043/0.215, 1055/0.0760,
960मि/0.0510, 1009/2/0.0480, 1011मि./0.0730, 1014मि./0.0380,
1020/0.2020, 1031/0.1830, 1032/0.0890, 1035मि./0.0760,
1037मि./0.1390, 1034मि./0.1960, 1061मि./0.3420, 955मि./0.0350,
956मि./0.1530, 1009/1/0.1140, 1024/0.1140, 1026मि./0.1640,
1027मि./0.1140, 1030/0.1390, 1033/0.1140, 1036मि./0.1260,
1040/0.2530, 1042मि./0.2530, 1044/0.1640, 1045/0.3290, 1048/0.2530,
1051/1/0.2440, 1054मि./0.1050, 1057मि./0.1010, 1058मि./0.1140,
1025/0.1140, 1028/0.0380, 1029/0.1260, 1041/0.2780, 957मि./0.0790,
961मि./0.0540, 1012मि./0.1180, 959मि./0.0160, 1015मि./0.0050 कुल 53
किता रकबा 0.8733 है. मा.गु. 119.20 रु से विक्रेता मैसर्स टाटा आइल मिल्स कम्पनी लि०
रजि० आफिस हिन्दुस्तान लिवर हाउस 165/66 बैवके रिक्लामेशन मुम्बई द्वारा अधिकृत मैसर्स
हिन्दुस्तान लि० मुम्बई आपरेटर गुरदीप सिंह पुत्र कुलभूषण सिंह निवासी उपरोक्त का नाम
खारिज करके क्रेता मैसर्स फ्रेन्ड्स लैण्ड डेवलपर्स के०डी० 14 कविनगर गाजियाबाद द्वारा
पार्टनर अतुल गर्ग पुत्र डी०सी० गर्ग नि. के०डी०-14 कविनगर गाजियाबाद व राकेश गर्ग पुत्र

39
WRIC No. - 21821 of 2025
स्व. पी.एस. गर्ग नि. 58 जी.टी. रोड गाजियाबाद का नाम बतौर बैनामा दर्ज हो। ह.अ.र.का.
27.9.10।"
132. Perusal of the aforesaid order as contained in the Khatauni of Fasli
Year 1412-1417 reveals that the aforesaid Gatas have been purchased by
the Promoter from M/s Tata Oil Mills Company Ltd. Despite there
being several letters of Squadron Leader, Flight Commander Works
Hindon Air Force to the Town Planner, Development Authority
Ghaziabad informing that Gata nos.1034, 1035,1051, 1054, 1058, 1060,
1061 & 1063 are owned by Hindon Air Force, and in this respect Writ-C
No.14251 of 1990 is pending, the Development Authority did not make
any endeavour to verify as to nature of dispute involved in the said writ
petition. The Development Authority without verifying the title of
Promoter in respect to aforesaid Khasra numbers concluded on the basis
of the mutation order, reproduced above that the title dispute of Promoter
with Air Force has been resolved.
133. We have summoned the record of Writ-C No.14251 of 1990 and
we found that the aforesaid plot owned by the Air Force were acquired
under the Defence of India Act, 1962. The following facts are noted from
the record of Writ-C No.14251 of 1990.
134. In the aforesaid writ petition, petitioner-Tata Oil Mills Company
Ltd. has pleaded that 18 plots have been acquired by respondent Union
of India under the Defence of India Act, 1962, but besides the said 18
plots, eight plots i.e. 1034, 1035,1051, 1054, 1058, 1060, 1061 & 1063
were not acquired by the Union of India, therefore, the aforesaid plots
have wrongly been included in L.A. Reference No.266/1977 (Tata Oil
Mills Company Ltd. Vs. Union of India) and the award in respect of
aforesaid plots has also been wrongly made.
135. The record of the aforesaid writ petition reveals that the petitioner
in the said writ petition submitted modification application registered as
Misc. Application No.1 of 1988 in L.A. Reference No.266/1977 for
modifying the award by deleting from paragraph no.2 of the award with

40
WRIC No. - 21821 of 2025
respect to aforesaid eight plots, which application was rejected by the
Reference Court by order dated 14.03.1990.
136. In paragraph no.1 of the aforesaid writ petition, the petitioner-Tata
Oil Mills Company Ltd. has detailed the plots owned by it and has
categorized the same in three following Schedules:-
“That the petitioner is owner of :
Plot No. Area (Bigha-Biswa) Category / Schedule
1035 0-3-0 Plots in Dispute (Schedule I)
1034 0-5-0
1051 0-16-0
1054 0-11-0
1058 0-3-0
1060 0-9-0
1061 0-12-0
1063 1-10-0
962 0-10-0 Plots Derequisitioned (Schedule-II)
1011 0-19-0
1015 2-8-0
961 0-2-0
Plots not Disputed (Schedule III)
964 0-2-0
1009 0-8-0
1010 0-10-0
1012 0-5-0
1014 1-15-0
965 0-3-0
966 0-11-0
967 0-2-0
968 1-18-0
969 1-3-0
970 1-17-0
971 1-3-0
974 0-18-0
975 0-10-0
982 0-10-0

41
WRIC No. - 21821 of 2025
1008 1-16-0
1013 0-19-0
137. In paragraph no. 4 of the aforesaid writ petition, the petitioner-
Tata Oil Mills Company Ltd. has categorically stated that the eight plots
of Schedule-I were also mentioned in the order of requisitioned lands,
whereas they were never requisitioned. Relevant pleadings in paragraph
4 of the Writ-C No.14251 of 1990 is being reproduced below:-
Plot No. Bigha-Biswa
961
0-2-0
964
0-2-0
1009 0-8-0
1010 0-11-0
1012 0-5-0
1014 1-15-0
965 0-3-0
966 0-11-0
967 0-2-0
968 1-18-0
969 1-3-0
970 1-17-0
971 1-3-0
974 0-18-0
975 1-10-0
982 0-10-0
1008 0-16-0
1013 0-19-0
1035 0-3-0
1034 0-5-0
1051 0-16-0
1054 0-11-0
1058 0-9-6
1060 0-9-0
1061 0-12-0
1063 1-10-0

42
WRIC No. - 21821 of 2025
This clearly shows that 8 plots of Schedule I were also mentioned in
the order of requisitioned lands actually they were never requisitioned
in fact. As a matter of fact both parties were under mutual mistake.
Govt. never intended to take these plots and petitioner thought that
government having no need and even though mentioned in the order
were actually not requisitioned.”
138. On the basis of the aforesaid pleadings, the petitioner-Tata Oil
Mills Company Ltd. has prayed for the following relief in the aforesaid
writ petition:-
“i. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of writ of
Certiorari calling upon the respondent No.1 to produce the record of
the petitioner's case and to quash the order of the respondent No.1
dated 14.3.90.
ii. To issue such other writ order or direction as this Hon'ble court
deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case so that justice be
done.
Iii. To award cost of the petition to the petitioner in the aforesaid
case.”
139. The respondent-Union of India in the counter affidavit filed in the
said writ petition took a specific stand that it had requisitioned 26 plots
which included the aforesaid eight plots, and the possession of plots had
been taken by possession memo dated 02.12.1963 by Tehsildar,
Ghaziabad, for Collectorate, Meerut.
140. The judgment in L.A. Reference No.266 of 1977 (Tata Oil Mills
Company Limited Vs. Union of India) establishes that the award had
been given in respect to aforesaid eight plots i.e. 1034, 1035, 1051,
1054, 1058, 1060, 1061 & 1063. Relevant extract of the said award is
being reproduced herein below:-
“The land of the claimant is plot no.966 measuring 0-11-0 Bighas, 967
0-200 Bigha, 982 0-10-0 Bigha, 1010 0-10-0 Bigha, 1012 0-5-0 Bigha,
964 0-2-0 Bigha, 1013 0-19-0 Bigha, 969 1-3-0 Bigha, 970 1-17-0
Bigha, 971 1-3-0 Bigha, 1014 1-15-0 Bigha, 960 1-18-0 Bigha, 1035

43
WRIC No. - 21821 of 2025
0-3-0 Bigha, 1008 1-16-0 Bigha, 1009 0-8-0 Bigha, 1034 0-5-0 Bigha,
961 0-2-0 Bigha, 965 0-3-0 Bigha, 974 0-18-0 Bigha, 975 0-10-0
Bigha, 1051 0-16-0 Bigha, 1054 0-11-0 Bigha, 1050 0-3-0 Bigha,
1060 0-9-0 Bigha, 1061 0-12-0 Bigha and 1063 1-10-0 Bigha situated
in Village-Karhera, Pargana-Loni, Tehsil-Ghaziabad, District Meerut
(now District Ghaziabad) was requisitioned under Section 29 of the
Act on the proposal of the Military Estate Officer, Meerut Circle,
Meerut for setting up of Hindon Airfield. The acquisition was made in
one phase and the possession was taken over on 02.12.1963.”
141. The record of the writ petition further reveals that during the
pendency of the writ petition, an amendment was sought by petitioner-
Tata Oil Mills Company Ltd. challenging the order/notice dated
26.03.1965 relating to aforesaid eight plots i.e. 1034, 1035,1051, 1054,
1058, 1060, 1061 & 1063 which amendment application was allowed,
and the grounds raised in the amendment application challenging the
acquisition notices and the prayer were incorporated in the writ petition.
The prayer incorporated in the writ petition by way of amendment is
being reproduced herein-below:-
“1(a) issue an appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the
acquisition orders / notices dated 26.3.1965 as contained in
Annexures no. IV (1) to VI (8) to the memo of writ petition in so far
as they relate to the eight plots i.e. plots no. 1034, 1035, 1051, 1054,
1060, 1061, 1063 situate at Village Karehra, District Ghaziabad.
1(b) issue an appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the
respondents concerned to release the eight plots in question i.e. plots
no. 1034, 1035, 1051, 1054, 1060, 1061, 1063 situate at Village
Karehra, District Ghaziabad from acquisition in favour of the
petitioner.”
142. The aforesaid writ petition was dismissed by this Court by
judgment and order dated 01.03.2012 on the ground of delay and laches.
The judgement and order of this Court dated 01.03.2012 is being
reproduced below:-

44
WRIC No. - 21821 of 2025
“This petition was initially filed against the order of the Additional
District Judge, Meerut, passed in land acquisition reference no. 266 of
1977. It is worthwhile to reproduce the prayer originally made in the writ
petition, which read as follows:
"1. To issue a writ order or direction in the nature of writ of
Certiorari calling upon the respondent No. 1 to produce the record of
the petitioner's case and to quash the order of the respondent No. 1
dated 14.3.90.
2. To issue such other writ order or direction as this Hon'ble Court
deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case so that justice be
done.
3. To award cost of the petition to the petitioner in the aforesaid
case."
From the aforesaid, it is apparently clear that at the time of filing of
the writ petition in the year 1990 the petitioner did not make any
prayer for the acquisition notification being set aside nor there was any
prayer that the petitioner may not be dispossessed from the plots,
which have been mentioned in the acquisition notification.
This Court may record that the order of the Additional District Judge,
Meerut in Reference Case No. 266 of 1977 was made on a reference
made under Section 37(2) of The Defence of India Act, 1962. Section
37(2) of the Act confines the power of the reference court to the issue
of determination of compensation only in respect of the property
which has been acquired under the said Act. The reference court has
no jurisdiction to enter into any issue as to whether the acquisition is
legally justified or not.
The petitioner could plead hardly any ground before this Court for
challenging the amount of compensation, which has been determined
by the reference court under the order impugned. Therefore, this Court
finds no good ground to interfere with the order of the reference court
dated 14.03.1990. In order to keep the record straight, it may be
noticed that after 27 years of the filing of the present petition and after
44 years of the issuance of the acquisition notification under The

45
WRIC No. - 21821 of 2025
Defence India Act, the petitioner made an amendment application for
addition of the following prayer:
"1(a) issue an appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the
acquisition orders/notices dated 26.3.1965 as contained in
Annexures no. IV(1) to VI(8) to the memo of writ petition in so
far as they relate to the eight plots i. e. plots no. 1034, 1035, 1051,
1054, 1060, 1061, 1063 situate at Village Karehra, District
Ghaziabad.
1(b) issue an appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the
respondents concerned to release the eight plots in question i. e.
plots no. 1034, 1035, 1051, 1054, 1060, 1061, 1063 situate at
Village Karehra, District Ghaziabad froom acquisition in favour of
the petitioner."
This amendment application has been allowed and the petitioner on
the strength of the amended prayer made an attempt to challenge
before this Court the notification pertaining to the acquisition of the
land made as early as in the year 1963.
I am of the considered opinion that it is too late in the day to permit
the petitioner to raise any such challenge. The petitioner has
acquiescenced to the acquisition notification, as for the reasons best
known to him he did not challenge the acquisition notification for 44
years.
This Court is also of the opinion that the amendment, as has been
prayed and granted is outside the scope of the petition itself and has
the effect of enlarging the boundaries of the proceedings which have
given rise to the present petition.
Writ petition is dismissed.”
143. Thus, in the light of aforesaid facts, it can be easily concluded that
eight plots i.e. 1034, 1035,1051, 1054, 1058, 1060, 1061 & 1063 had
been acquired by the Union of India for establishment of Hindon Air
Base and possession of the aforesaid Khasras were taken by possession
memo dated 02.12.1963, award in respect of aforesaid land had also

46
WRIC No. - 21821 of 2025
been given, which is also evident from the award dated 30.09.1985.
Therefore, no sale deed in respect to aforesaid plots could have been
executed by the erstwhile owner Tata Oil Mills Company Ltd.
Registered Office, Hindustan Lever House, 165/166 Backbay
Reclamation, Bombay through authorized M/s Hindustan Ltd. Bombay
Operator Gurdeep Singh, son of Kulbhushan Singh in favour of
Promoter. In such view of the fact, the sale deeds executed in respect to
the aforesaid plots are void and do not confer any title upon the Promoter
in respect to the aforesaid eight plots.
144. Therefore, for the reasons stated above, the aforesaid eight plots
could not not be included by the Development Authority in determining
the land area under the project nor can be included for calculating the
FAR.
145. The Promoter while submitting the application for sanction of
layout did not disclose the correct facts and when the objection was
raised by the Indian Air Force, the Development Authority without
verifying the correct facts only on the basis of report of Tehsildar and
Khatauni for the Fasli Year 1412-1417 presumed that the Promoter has
title over the aforesaid plots.
146. Given that the Promoter had submitted an application to establish
a large Group Housing Society exceeding 1000 dwelling units, the
Development Authority should have acted more cautiously. Furthermore,
once an Air Force Officer informed the Authority about the pendency of
Writ-C No.14251 of 1990, the Authority should have verified the nature
of dispute involved in the said writ petition.
147. The petitioner in paragraph no.16 of Writ-C No.14251 of 1990 has
categorically stated that Promoter has included Khasra no. 1034 and
1035 belonging to Indian Air Force. Paragraph no.16 of the aforesaid
writ petition is being reproduced herein-below:-
“16. That the Plot area- 87930 sq. mt consist of khasra nos. 955 to
960, 1010, 1011, 1015 & (1017 to 1051). The Khasra no.1034 & 1035
=2720 sq.m belongs to Defense Air Force Hindan. The respondent no.

47
WRIC No. - 21821 of 2025
3 included Air Force Land in his plot land while calculating permissible
FAR & ground coverage and respondent 2 without verification
approved the compounding. The FAR compounded in III compounding
is in excess of permissible FAR area which is impermissible under the
law.”
148. The respondent no.2 has replied to the paragraph 16 of the writ
petition in paragraph no.45 of the counter affidavit wherein it has denied
the factum of paragraph no.16 of the writ petition. Paragraph no.45 of
the counter affidavit of the Development Authority is being reproduced
below:-
“45. That the contents of paragraph no. 16 of the writ petition is not
admitted, being misconceived. Owing to the land dispute, the map was
cancelled by the answering respondent on 03.07.2010, however only
when the dispute was resolved by the developer itself, the 1st
compounding map came to be sanctioned on 15.11.2011.”
149. The Promoter in his affidavit dated 06.09.2026 in paragraph no.22,
has refuted the allegation of the petitioner that the Air Force land has
been wrongly included in computing the permissible FAR. Paragraph
no.22 of the affidavit of Promoter dated 06.09.2026 titled as ‘compliance
affidavit’ is being reproduced below:-
“22. That the allegation that the answering respondent wrongly
Included defence/Air Force land (Khasra Nos. 1034 and 1035) while
computing the permissible FAR and ground coverage is wholly
incorrect and is denied. The plot area of 87,930 sq. mtr. is the lawful
holding of the answering respondent, being its private/freehold land
together with the land secured under the Land Exchange Deed, and the
plot area, FAR and ground coverage were examined and verified by
Respondent No. 2.”
150. We have perused the entire record and we did not find any
document except Khatauni of Fasli Year 1412-1417 in respect of of title
of land, which has been placed on record in respect to aforesaid eight
plots.

48
WRIC No. - 21821 of 2025
151. However, from the facts delineated above from Writ-C No.14251
of 1990 filed by the Tata Oil Mills Company Limited, it is manifest that
Gata nos.1034, 1035,1051, 1054, 1058, 1060, 1061 & 1063 were
acquired under the Indian Defence Act, 1962, and the possession of the
aforesaid Gatas had been taken by possession memo dated 02.12.1963
and award in respect to the aforesaid Gatas had also been given in L.A.
Reference No.266 of 1977, and Modification Application No.1 of 1988
for excluding the aforesaid Gatas from the award was rejected by the
Court of Additional District Judge, Meerut by order dated 14.03.1990.
The Writ-C No. 14251 of 1990 of Tata Oil Mills Company Ltd. wherein
it had challenged the order 14.03.1990 and had also challenged the
acquisition order dated 26.03.1965 of the aforesaid eight plots, and
prayed for exclusion of the aforesaid plots by amendment, was also
dismissed vide order dated 01.03.2012.
152. The aforesaid fact establishes that Indian Air Force has a title over
Khasra nos.1034, 1035,1051, 1054, 1058, 1060, 1061 & 1063, therefore,
the Promoter is guilty of including aforesaid Khasras for the purpose of
calculation of FAR and ground coverage under the project. The
Development Authority is also equally guilty of sanctioning
compounded map by including the aforesaid eight plots without
verifying about the dispute involved in Writ-C No.14251 of 1990, which
was brought to its notice by the Officer of Air Force through several
letters.
153. It is also relevant to reproduce the relevant extract of note sheet of
the original record of the Development Authority appearing on pages-38
& 39 prepared by Mohd. Haroon, Junior Engineer, Satendra Solanki,
Junior Engineer, Sudheer Kumar Pandey, Junior Engineer and Arun
Kumar Sharma, Assistant Engineer which reads as under:-
"मानचित्र अनुभाग द्वारा उपरोक्त उल्लि खि त बिन्दु सं० 1 व 2 पर क्रियान्वयन हेतु
निर्माणकर्ता फर्म मै० फैन्ड्स लैण्ड डेवलपर्स को प्रवर्तन अनुभाग से पत्रांक 741/प्र०ख०-
2/09 दिनांक 26.08.09 प्रेषित किया गया। प्रत्रोत्तर में फर्म के भागीदार ने अपने पत्र में
उल्लेख किया है कि प्रश्नगत खसरा नम्बरों 1034 मि ., 1035 मि ., 1054 मि ., 1060,

49
WRIC No. - 21821 of 2025
1061 मि . की भूमि में से लगभग 4560 वर्ग मी० भूमि पर कोई निर्माण कार्य नहीं किया जा
रहा है तथा स्थलानुसार किए गए कार्य को सुपर इम्पोज प्लान में गहरे रंग से दर्शाया गया है
एवं यह भी उल्लेख किया गया है कि इन खसरा नम्बरों की उक्त भूमि के अधिपत्य के संबंध
में मा० उच्च न्यायालय में वाद विचाराधीन है तथा फर्म के पक्ष में स्थगन आदेश भी पारित है
जिसकी छाया प्रति पत्र के साथ संलग्न की गयी है। पक्ष द्वारा अपने अन्य पत्र के साथ
आन्तरिक विकास कार्य हेतु वांछित बैंक गारन्टी नवीनीकरण कर प्रस्तुत की गयी है।
अतः प्रश्नगत प्रकरण में पूर्व पृष्ठ 34 पर उल्लेखि त अर्जन अनुभाग के प्रभारी अधिशासी
अभियंता महोदय की आख्या के क्रम में अधिनियम की धारा 15 के अन्तर्गत निर्माण अनुज्ञा
के पुनरीक्षण/पुनविचार हेतु पत्रावली मानचित्र अनुभाग को अग्रसारित करने का कष्ट करें।"
154. The note sheet, extracted above, clearly reveals that the
Development Authority was aware of the fact that the dispute of title in
respect of aforesaid eight plots was pending before the High Court. The
original record does not reflect that any endeavour was made by the
respondent-Authority to verify the nature of dispute pending before the
High Court.
155. In the noting, extracted above, it has been mentioned that a stay
order was operating in favour of the Promoter. From the record, it
appears that Promoter had preferred Writ-C No.40643 of 2006 praying
for quashing of the letter dated 02.06.2006 of the Development
Authority to the extent it demanded Rs.16,80,88,109.00/- from the
petitioner-Promoter towards external development fee. The prayer in the
aforesaid writ petition is being reproduced herein below:-
“(i). Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing
the impugned letter dated 2.6.2006 issued by the respondent
Development Authority to the extent it demands Rs.16,80,88,109.00/-
from the petitioners towards external development fee.
(I-A). Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing
the resolutions of the Ghaziabad Development Authority dated
22.8.1997 and the order dated 1.6.2006 (Annexure 'CA-2' and 'CA-3' to
the Counter Affidavit filed by the Authority) and directing the
Authority to refund the entire amount deposited by the petitioners
towards development fees.

50
WRIC No. - 21821 of 2025
(ii). Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus
commanding the Ghaziabad Development Authority to sanction and
release the map as submitted by the petitioners in respect of their
residential group housing to be constructed on 95 Katori Mill, Loni
Road, Ghaziabad without charging any external development fee.
(iii). Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus
commanding upon the Ghaziabad Development Authority to charge
external development fee, if so leviable, as per the directions contained
in paragraph 3(Kha) of the Government Order dated 29.12.2005.
(iv). Issue any other suitable writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble
Court may deem fit and proper and to which the petitioners may be
found entitled to in the facts and circumstances of the case
(v). Award costs of this petition to the petitioners.”
156. In the said writ petition, following stay order had been granted on
04.08.2006 which is being reproduced herein below:-
“Counter affidavit may be filed within one month. Rejoinder affidavit
may be filed within two weeks thereafter.
List thereafter.
On the petitioner's depositing the entire demand made by the Ghaziabad
Development Authority, the G.D.A. shall release the map. If the
petitioner's writ petition succeeds the G.D.A. will refund the amount.”
157. Later on, the said writ petition was disposed off by this Court on
01.07.2010.
158. It is pertinent to note that in the Writ-C No.40643 of 2006, the
issue with regard to title of land acquired by the Indian Air Force in
respect of aforesaid eight Khasras was not involved rather an entirely
different issue was involved, and the Promoter had obtained a stay order
in respect to the demand of the external development charges. However,
it transpires from the record that Promoter has given wrong fact before
the Authority by asserting that stay order was operating in favour of the
petitioner-Promoter in respect of aforesaid eight Khasras acquired by
Indian Air Force. The challenge to the acquisition of aforesaid eight

51
WRIC No. - 21821 of 2025
Khasras owned by Indian Air Force was in Writ-C No.14251 of 1990
filed by Tata Oil Mills Company Ltd. in which no stay order was passed.
159. Despite the fact that title of the aforesaid eight plots were
disputed, the Development Authority proceeded to include those plots
for the purpose of calculating FAR.
160. Note sheet, extracted above, shows that the area of the aforesaid
eight plots is 4560 Sq. Meter. If the area of 4560 Sq. Meter of eight plots
are excluded from the total area of land of the Promoter under the
project, it would obviously reduce the FAR available to the Promoter
substantially.
161. The law is settled that Development Authority cannot legally
sanction or compound a layout or building plan for a housing scheme or
plots when Promoter or applicant does not hold a valid title or clear
ownership rights.
162. Learned counsel for the respondents has also relied upon
Regulation 3.1.7 of Chapter III of the Building Bye-laws which is also
reproduced herein below:-
“3.1.7 निर्माण कार्य के समय विचलन- निर्माण कार्य के दौरान यदि स्वीकृत प्लान से
कोई विचलन है या विचलन किया जाना अभिप्रेत है , जो भवन उपविधि के प्रस्तर 3.1.1 के
अन्तर्गत नहीं है , तो प्रस्तावित विचलन निष्पादित करने से पूर्व संशोधित मानचित्र जो
अनुज्ञापित तकनीकी व्यक्ति द्वारा प्रमाणित हो , प्राधिकरण में जमा कर अनुज्ञा प्राप्त की
जाएगी। भवन निर्माण के समय किये गये ऐसे परिवर्तन / विचलन जो उपविधि के
प्रस्तर -3.1.1 से आच्छादित है , में निर्माण के समय पुनरीक्षित भवन मानचित्र प्रस्तुत किया
जाना अथवा ऐसे परिवर्तनों हेतु निर्माण अनुज्ञा प्राप्त करना आवश्यक नहीं होगा। परन्तु
- हाउसिंग ग्रुप , व्यावसायिक एवं अन्य बहुखण्डीय भवनों के प्रकरणों में पुनरीक्षित मानचित्र
जमा कराया जाना अनिवार्य होगा। "
163. On the strength of the aforesaid Regulations of the Building Bye-
laws, it has also been submitted by learned counsel for the respondents
that the aforesaid Regulations provide that if during construction or
development, if variation takes place from the approved plan, which
does not come under Regulation 3.1.1 of Building Bye-laws, the
Promoter shall submit a revised map.

52
WRIC No. - 21821 of 2025
164. Accordingly, it is submitted that the deviation from the approved
plan within the permissible limit is permitted, and that can be
compounded under the Compounding Bye-laws, 2009 framed by the
State Government under Section 57 (bb) read with Section 32 of Act,
1973.
165. The aforesaid contention of respondent no.2 is entirely misplaced
and proceeds on a manifest misreading of the plain text of Regulation
3.1.7 of the Building Bye-laws. A plain reading of Regulation 3.1.7 of
the Building Bye-laws suggest that if the deviation or proposed deviation
in the sanctioned layout plan is not covered under Regulation 3.1.1 of
the Building Bye-laws, then before making any such deviation, an
amended map duly certified by the authorized technical person shall be
submitted in the Development Authority and permission is obtained. In
other words, Regulation 3.1.7 casts an obligation upon the Promoter to
submit a revised or amended layout certified by an authorized technical
person to the Development Authority and explicitly secure the formal
approval of Development Authority. It is only in cases where deviation is
covered under Regulation 3.1.1, the formal approval/ sanction from the
Development Authority is not required. We have recorded a detailed
finding while dealing with the argument of learned counsel for the
respondents in respect of Regulation 13 of Regulation, 2002 and
Regulation 2.1.7 that Promoter has not obtained any prior sanction from
the Chief Executive Officer in original layout before making deviations
and alterations in construction.
166. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, there is no
provision under the Act, 1973 which permits the compounding of
construction which has been raised in contravention to the sanctioned
plan/map.
167. It is submitted that deviation from the sanctioned map is an
offence and that offence can only be compounded under Section 32 of
the Act, 1973. Compounding Rules, 2009 have been promulgated with

53
WRIC No. - 21821 of 2025
an object to provide procedure and conditions for compounding of
offence under Section 32 of Act, 1973.
168. To appreciate the argument of learned counsel for the petitioners,
it would be apt to reproduce Section 32 of the Act, 1973:-
“32. Composition of Offences.—(1) Any offence made punishable by
or under this Act may either before or after the institution of
proceedings, be compounded by [the Vice-Chairman (or any officer
authorised by him in that behalf by general or special order)], on such
terms, including any term as regards payment of a composition fee, as
[the Vice-Chairman] (or such officer) may think fit.
(2) Where an offence has been compounded, the offender, if in
custody, shall be discharged and no further proceedings shall be taken
against him in respect of the offence compounded.”
169. This is a peculiar case where the Development Authority has
approved the compounding map where no original sanctioned
map/layout is in existence inasmuch as the original sanction layout/map
dated 29.05.2006 was cancelled on 03.07.2010, and the cancellation
order was neither set aside nor recalled by the competent authority.
170. The illegality did not stop here. The Promoter, after first
compounding, started raising further dwelling units and again deviated
from the so called first compounding map and submitted another
compounding map, which was approved by the Authority on 06.04.2015
and is called as ‘second compounding’.
171. After obtaining the second compounding, the Promoter again
deviated from the second compounding and raised two additional floors
th th
i.e. floor 9 and 10 in Tower nos 16, 17, 18, 19 and added Tower no.27
and Tower no.28.
172. At this stage, it would be apposite to reproduce Regulation 2.2 of
Compounding Bye-laws, 2009 which reads as under:-
“2.2 शमन योग्य निर्माण से सम्बन्धि त अपराध का शमन इस प्रतिबन्ध के साथ किया
जाएगा कि अशमनीय निर्माण से सम्बन्धि त अपराध को अभियुक्त आगे गतिमान नहीं

54
WRIC No. - 21821 of 2025
रखेगा तथा अशमनीय अवैध निर्माण अथवा विकास कार्य अथवा उपरोक्त शमनीय
अपराध का शमन करने के आदेश देने वाले अधिकारी द्वारा निर्दिष्ट अवधि के भीतर , जो
30 दिन से अधिक न होगी , समाप्त कर देगा , अन्यथा उसके विरुद्ध पुनः अभियोजन एवं
ध्वस्तीकरण की कार्यवाही हेतु विकास प्राधिकरण स्वतन्त्र होगा। "
173. A perusal of the aforesaid Regulation reveals that the
compounding of a map shall be done on taking an undertaking from the
offender that the offence shall not be repeated again, and after the map is
compounded, the uncompoundable construction shall be demolished by
the applicant otherwise Development Authority shall be at liberty to
demolish uncompounded construction.
174. We are of the view that the Promoter cannot use the tool of
compounding to evade the regulations and execute major structural
changes viz adding unapproved floors to an existing block; constructing
additional towers that were not part of originally sanctioned layout plan,
shrinking mandated open spaces, green zones or common amenities
promised to the apartment owners.
175. In the present case, the Promoter has made deviation in the
original layout while submitting the first compounding map by adding
additional floors in several Towers. He has again made the similar
deviation in the second compounding map by adding additional floors in
several Towers. He again has made substantial changes in layout by
adding two floors in Tower nos.16, 17, 18 & 19 and has further added
two Towers i.e. Tower nos. 27 & 28.
176. In view of the aforesaid fact, it is established from the record that
the Promoter has sought compounding of identical offences which he
had committed while submitting the first and second compounding
applications, which establishes that the Promoter had violated the layout
purposefully again and again after submitting the undertaking under
Regulation 2.2. Therefore, in such circumstances, the repeated offences
committed by the Promoter after first compounding are explicitly barred
from compounding by virtue of Regulation 2.2 of Compounding Bye-
laws.

55
WRIC No. - 21821 of 2025
177. The Act, 1973 does not contemplate or permits the authorities to
regularize the construction, and it is only the offence which has been
committed by the accused under Section 32 of the Act, 1973 by making
deviation and violating the sanctioned map which is compounded.
Therefore, under the garb of compounding, the accused cannot be
permitted to perpetuate and commit same offence time and again and get
it compounded under Section 32 of the Act, 1973.
178. So, Section 32 of the Act, 1973 read with Regulation 2.20 of
Compounding Bye-laws, 2009 permits the compounding of offence in
respect to same or identical offence only once and not beyond.
Therefore, after the offence committed by a person/Promoter/Builder
under Section 32 of the Act, 1973 has been compounded under
Compounding Bye-laws, 2009, subsequent identical offence is not
compoundable nor the Authorities can permit the subsequent
compounding.
179. It is trite law that the compounding only waives or satisfies
criminal liability/fines. It cannot be used as a tool to regularize
architectural changes that runs counter to the layout plan.
180. It has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the Promoter as
well as Development Authority that after the sanction of layout plan in
the case of Housing Schemes, the construction is done phase-wise and it
is altogether impossible to raise construction in one go of the entire
Housing Scheme, and thereafter, get the deviations permissible under the
law from sanctioned map compounded, because in a big Housing
Scheme, huge finance is involved, and it is not possible for a Promoter to
invest such huge amount and complete the project in one go, starts
selling the flats so constructed.
181. We are conscious of this fact. However, answer to the aforesaid
contention can be found in the Explanation to sub-section (5) of Section
4 of the Act, 2010 which provides that completion of construction work
of a building as a whole or the completion of an independent block of
such building, as the case may be.

56
WRIC No. - 21821 of 2025
182. At this point it would be apt to refer to Section 15A of the Act
1973, which provides for completion certificate, and also sub-section (5)
of Section 4 of the Act, 2010. Section 15A of the Act, 1973 and sub-
section (5) of Section 4 of the Act, 2010 are reproduced below:-
“15A. Completion Certificate.—(1) Every person or body having been
granted permission under sub-section (3) of Section 15, shall complete
the developments according to the approved plan and send a notice in
writing of such completion to the Authority, and obtain a completion
certificate from the Authority in the manner prescribed or provided in the
bye-laws of the Authority :
Provided that if completion certificate is not granted and refusal to
grant it is not intimated within three months after receipt of the notice
of completion, it shall be deemed that the completion certificate has
been granted by the Authority.
(2) No person shall occupy or permit to be occupied any commercial
building or use or permit to be used such part thereof affected by any
work until:
(a) completion certificate has been issued by the Authority; or
(b) Authority has failed for three months after the receipt of the
notice of completion to intimate its refusal of grant of the said
certificate.
Explanation.—For the purposes of this section the expression
"commercial building" shall have the meaning assigned to it in the
Uttar Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1959.”
Section 4 of the Act, 2010
4. General liabilities of promoter.-
(5) An apartment may be transferred by the promoter to any person only
after obtaining the completion certificate from the prescribed
sanctioning authority concerned as per building bye-laws. The
completion certificate shall be obtained by promoter from prescribed
authority [within the period specified for completion of the project in the
development permit or the building permit as the case may be.]

57
WRIC No. - 21821 of 2025
Provided that if the construction work is not completed within the
stipulated period, with the permission of the prescribed authority;
Provided further that if the completion certificate is not issued by the
prescribed sanctioning authority within three months of submission of
the application by the promoter complete with all certificates and other
documents required, the same shall be deemed to have been issued after
the expiry of three months.
Explanation—For the purposes of this sub-section "completion" means
the completion of the construction works of a building as a whole or the
completion of an independent block of such building, as the case may
be.”
183. Section 15A(1) of the Act, 1973 mandates a person or body having
been granted permission under sub-section (3) of Section 15 to complete
the developments according to the approved plan and send a notice in
writing of such completion to the Authority and obtain a completion
certificate from the Authority in the manner prescribed or provided in the
bye-laws of the Authority.
184. The proviso to sub section 15A(1) of the Act, 1973 provides that if
the completion certificate is not granted and refusal to grant it is not
intimated within three months after receipt of notice of completion, the
completion certificate is deemed to be granted by the Authority.
185. So, the person or body having permission under sub-section (3) of
Section 15A of the Act, 1973 on completing developments according to
the approved plan, shall give a notice in writing of such completion to
the Authority and obtain a completion certificate from the Authority.
186. However, if the Authority does not grant or refusal to grant
completion certificate is not intimated by the authority within three
months after receipt of notice of completion certificate, the completion
certificate is deemed to have been granted.
187. After promulgation of Act, 2010, provisions of Act, 2010 would
apply. Further, Section 4 of the Act, 2010 provides the duties and
liabilities of Promoter.

58
WRIC No. - 21821 of 2025
188. Section 4 (5) of the Act, 2010 prohibits the Promoter to transfer
apartment to a person without obtaining the completion certificate from
the prescribed sanctioning authority concerned as per Building Bye-
laws.
189. The second proviso to sub-section (5) of Section 4 of the Act,
2010 also stipulates that in case the completion certificate is not issued
by the prescribed sanctioning authority within three months of
submission of application by the Promoter complete with all certificates
and other documents required, the completion certificate shall be
deemed to have been issued after expiry of three months.
190. Explanation to sub-section (5) of Section 4 of the Act, 2010
contemplates that ‘completion’ under the aforesaid sub-section means
the completion of construction work of a building as a whole or
completion of independent block of such building as the case may be.
191. The Section 15A of the Act, 1973 and Section 4 (5) of the Act,
2010 must be construed harmoniously to achieve the purpose and object
of both enactments. The Group Housing consists of many independent
blocks. In such cases, the Promoter can complete a block in all respect
and, thereafter, obtain a completion certificate in respect of that block
under the Building Bye-laws from the prescribed authority, and,
thereafter, the Promoter can transfer the apartment in such block.
192. The whole object of incorporating the Explanation to sub-section
(5) of Section 4 of the Act, 2010 in giving liberty to the Promoter to
complete one block of Housing Society and obtain completion certificate
in respect of that block is to ease out the financial burden of the
Promoter as well as purchaser of the flats inasmuch as on selling the flats
and apartments in completed block, the Promoter would get money to
invest in the construction of other blocks, on the other hand the
apartment owners who have invested the money in purchasing flats can
reap the benefit of such investment, and if the apartment owner had
purchased the apartment after taking loan from a financial institution, he

59
WRIC No. - 21821 of 2025
may be eased out from additional burden of paying rent and his liability
to pay EMIs of the loan is also eased out.
193. In the instant case, despite there being a provision under the Act,
2010 for obtaining a completion certificate after completing construction
of a tower/block viable for living, the Promoter did not do so in respect
of that tower where the construction has been completed rather applied
for completion certificate as per his own convenience. He has altered the
layout/map to reap the maximum financial gain.
194. In our opinion, such alteration/addition is not permissible for the
reason that as per Regulation 13 of Regulation, 2002, if the Promoter
wants any addition or intends to alter sanction plan, he shall have to
obtain permission from the Chief Executive Officer before the proposed
additions/alterations are carried out.
195. We further record that in a Group Housing Scheme, the Promoter
can make the construction of each Tower sanctioned under the layout
plan and while constructing the Tower as per original layout plan, if
there is deviation in each block within permissible limit, he can seek the
compounding in respect of each block, but under the garb of
compounding, he is not permitted to make alteration and deviation in the
layout plan by adding some floors in a block beyond sanctioned limit as
per original layout or by adding additional Tower in layout plan thereby,
evading Regulation 13 of Regulation 2002, Regulation 2.1.7 and 3.1.7 of
Building Bye-laws which mandates the Promoter to obtain prior
permission before making any external addition or alteration in the
layout plan.
196. Perhaps, envisaging the difficulty faced by Promoter, the
Legislature in Explanation to Section 4 (5) of the Act, 2010 has allowed
the Promoter in case of Group Housing to construct one tower/block
under the sanctioned layout plan and get a completion certificate in
respect to that block. Thus, Legislature in other words has treated one
tower/block in a Group Housing Scheme as one unit and allowed the
Promoter to obtain completion certificate, and thereafter, transfer the

60
WRIC No. - 21821 of 2025
apartment and possession to the vendee (purchaser). Therefore, in such
case compounding of deviation in each block within permissible limit
without making any external addition or alteration in sanctioned layout
is permissible, and we, in such sense, can call that multiple
compounding is permissible in Group Housing Scheme.
197. Now coming to the impugned compounding map dated
18.12.2024, we find that the two additional floors have been constructed
by the Promoter in Tower nos. 16, 17, 18, 19.
198. It has been argued by counsel for the petitioners that addition of
floors cannot be compounded in view of Regulation 3.2.10 of
Compounding Bye-laws, 2009 which reads as under.
“3.2.10 भूखण्डीय विकास के अन्तर्गत तलों की संख्या परिवर्तित किए बिना अनुमन्य ऊँचाई
का 10 प्रतिशत से अधिक ऊँचाई का निर्माण।"
199. He submits that a reading of the aforesaid Regulation shows that
without changing the number of floors in a tower or building, the height
of the tower or building can be raised up to 10%.
200. However, learned counsel for the respondents has contended that
Regulation 3.2.10 is not attracted in the instant case as it is only in
respect of plotted developments and not in case of Group Housing
Scheme as the Group Housing Scheme has been treated differently from
the plotted developments. In this respect, reliance has been placed on
Regulations 3.3, 3.3.5 and 3.3.11 of Compounding Bye-laws, 2009
which reads as under:-
“3.3 मानचित्र में भवन निर्माण एवं विकास उपविधि के अनुसार अनुमन्य निर्माण एवं
अवैध निर्माण अलग-अलग दर्शाए जाएंगे। 'फ्रन्ट', 'साइड' एवं पीछे के सेट बैक में
अनाधिकृत निर्माण मुख्य भवन की निरन्तरता (Contiguity) में ही शमनीय होगा
तथा अनुमन्य भू-आच्छादन एवं तल क्षेत्रफल से अधिक निर्माण निम्नलिखि त सीमा
तक शमनीय होगा :-

61
WRIC No. - 21821 of 2025
3.3.5 ग्रुप हाउसिंग तथा बहुमंजिले व्यवसायिक, कार्यालय एवं संस्थागत भवनों में
अग्निशमन सुरक्षा हेतु वांछित न्यूनतम सैट-बैक कम न होने की दशा में अनुमन्य भू-
आच्छादन का अधिकतम 10 प्रतिशत तक अतिरिक्त निर्माण।
3.3.11 आवासीय भवनों में अनुमन्य इकाइयों के अतिरिक्त शमनीय इकाइयों की
अधिकतम संख्या भूखण्ड के क्षेत्रफल के आधार पर निम्नवत होगी:-
(क) भूखण्डीय विकास में अधिकतम एक इकाई।
(ख) ग्रुप हाउसिंग में शमनीय अतिरिक्त एफ.ए.आर./क्रय-योग्य एफ.ए.आर. के
प्रतिशत के सापेक्ष समानुपातिक इकाइयां।”
201. We find substance in the submission of counsel for the petitioners
inasmuch as Regulation 3.2.10 permits raising of height of building or
block up to 10% without changing the number of floors. The said
Regulation does not lay any distinction between plotted developments
and Group Housing Scheme. It applies to the building or blocks in a
multi-storey building and also to plotted developments.
202. The reason why we say so is that the word ‘ in
भूखण्डीय विकास'
Regulation 3.2.10 refers to land development or plot development.
203. In our opinion, the land development refers to a sustainable
development with an object to have a society where living conditions
and sources meet human needs without undermining planetary integrity.
204. In other words, sustainable development aims to balance the needs
of economy, environment and society. So, in our view, the word
‘भूखण्डीय
eferred in Regulation 3.2.10 has been used to achieve the
विकास' r
aforesaid object. Therefore, we are of the view that the distinction sought
to be made by the learned counsel for the respondents that the said
Regulation is applicable only in respect to plotted developments and not
in respect to Group Housing Scheme would frustrate the very object of
the provisions of Regulation 3.2.10.
205. We also find no rationale in the submission of counsel for the
respondents for the reason that in case of plotted developments where
small plots are used for individual living, such a restriction is applicable,

62
WRIC No. - 21821 of 2025
and not in cases of multi-storey residential units inasmuch as strict
regulation to regulate multi-storey building are needed in order to secure
and protect the life of large number of families living in such multi-
storey buildings. Therefore, for this reason also, the distinction sought to
be made by learned counsel for the respondents does not appeal to our
conscience. Therefore, we hold that the construction of two additional
floors in Tower nos.16, 17, 18, 19 was not compoundable.
206. Further, we have already held that if any external additions or
alterations from the sanctioned map are intended to be made, the
Promoter/Builder has to obtain prior approval from the Chief Executive
Officer in writing before the proposed additions or alterations are
carried out.
207. In the instant case, under the third compounding plan, the
Promoter had erected additional block nos.27 and 28 which amounts to
alteration in the layout plan, and before carrying such alteration, the
Promoter had to obtain prior permission in respect of proposed
alteration, which has not been done in the present case, therefore
addition of two blocks which amounts to change in the layout plan in
violation of Regulation 13 of Regulation, 2002 is illegal and cannot be
compounded only on the ground that Promoter has permissible FAR.
208. We have already held that Promoter has included land owned by
by the Indian Air Force, and the Development Authority has included the
aforesaid land for calculating FAR which is per se illegal, therefore,
FAR has wrongly been calculated and for this reason also, the third
compounding is illegal.
209. Neither the Act nor Bye-laws permits the regularization of
construction and it is only the offence which has been compounded. In
this respect, it would be apt to refer to the judgment of this Court in the
case of Tula Ram and Others Vs. Kanpur Development Authority 2016
(118) ALR 174. Paragraph nos. 31, 32, 33, 34 and 45 of the said
judgement are being reproduced herein below:-

63
WRIC No. - 21821 of 2025
“31. This Court finds no provision under the Act, 1973 which entitles
the Authority to go for profiteering on an illegal act of encroachment
or unauthorized construction in the name of compounding. The
compounding contemplated in section 32 is in respect to offences
punishable under the Act. It nowhere provides that once an offence is
compounded, an act, which is in violation of Plan, shall also stand
regularized or become valid. The effect of compounding is provided in
sub-section (2) of section 32 that an offender, if in custody, shall be
discharged and no further proceedings shall be taken against him in
respect to the “offence” compounded. This is with regard to criminal
liability fastened upon the person for committing an offence under Act,
1973. But the prohibition contained in the Act and statutory obligation
upon Authorities to set right a person who has faulted/breached such
provision by taking appropriate action, e.g. demolition of building by
exercising power under section 27 has not been made inoperable when
an offence is compounded. The proceeding prevented as a result of
compounding an “offence” relates to offence and illegality/irregularity
so prohibited/controlled is under another provision.
32. It may also be noticed that by U.P. Act No. 3 of 1997 (hereinafter
referred to as “Act, 1997”), certain other offences have been provide
vide sections 26-D and 28-A. However, removal of any raised
construction in contravention of Plan and removal of encroachment
etc. are governed by a different procedure and steps which would
remain uneffected by such compounding. In other words,
compounding under the Act, 1973 is to avoid criminal liability and
punishment on conviction but not to regularize a construction
prohibited under the Act for which no relaxation is permissible except
when the plan is amended in accordance with section 13 of the Act.
33. In the garb of compounding, a resolution of authority or
Development Authority itself will not cure the patent defect going to
the root of the matter and an illegality will not stand cured and legal
with the consent of KDA or any other development authority since
statute provides a particular procedure and nothing can be done in a
manner other then the procedure prescribed in the statute.

64
WRIC No. - 21821 of 2025
34. When law requires something to be done in a particular manner,
things done otherwise are prohibited. This principle was recognized in
Nazir Ahmad v. King-Emperor AIR 1936 PC 253 and, thereafter it has
been reiterated and followed consistently by the Apex Court in a
catena of judgments, which I do not propose to refer all but would like
to refer a few recent one.
45. The reason for making an approved plan sacrosanct and not to be
touched easily is very evident. In the developed countries a lot of
emphasis is on the planned development of cities and urban areas. In
fact there dividing line in the urban and rural areas is getting
obliterated and one can say that every kind of local body is supposed
to proceed with an objective of planned development. The object of
planned development can be achieved by rigorous enforcement of
plans prepared after careful study of intricate issues of city
management, scientific research, rationalization of loss and other
issues. The people of developed countries have successfully achieved
the objective of planned development contributing largely by strictly
adhering to plans, local laws and other directions including restrictions
necessary for effective implementation of such plans. They respect the
laws enacted by legislature for regulating planned development of
cities. There, one finds seldom complaint of violation of master plan
etc. in construction of building; residential, institutional or
commercial.”
210. It is also the case of the petitioners that there is a violation of
Section 5 (3) (a) of the Act, 2010, which mandates that the percentage
of undivided interest of each apartment owner in the common area and
facilities shall have a permanent character.
211. The aforesaid submission has been made on the strength that with
the increase in number of flats, the percentage of undivided interest of
petitioners in the common areas and facilities shall be altered and
reduced which cannot be done without the consent of all the apartment
owners and approval of the competent authority.
212. However, it is contended by the learned counsel for the
respondents that in the present case, as per available FAR, the Promoter

65
WRIC No. - 21821 of 2025
could construct 1603 flats, whereas he has been permitted to construct
only 1096 units which is lesser than the permissible limit. Accordingly,
no consent is required as the common areas and facilities which have a
permanent character have not been altered.
213. It is also urged that the petitioners are not the residents of those
towers in which additions of floors have been made, therefore,
petitioners cannot allege the violation of Section 5 (3) (a) of the Act,
2010.
214. In our considered view, the aforesaid contention of learned
counsel for the respondents is misplaced in view of the law enunciated
by this Court as well as the Apex Court.
215. In this respect, it would be pertinent to refer to the judgment of
this Court in the case of M/s Designarch Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. and
Another Vs. Vice Chairman, Ghaziabad Development Authority and
Others 2013 (9) ADJ 594 (DB). Paragraph no.65(7) of the said
judgement is being reproduced herein below:-
“65. To sum up the conclusions drawn by us are as follows:
...
(7). Under Section 5 (1) of the U.P. Apartment Act, 2010 every person to
whom any apartment is sold or transferred by the promoter shall subject
to other provisions of the Act be entitled to exclusive ownership and
possession of the apartment so sold or otherwise transferred. He is under
sub-section (2) entitled to the exclusive ownership and possession of
apartment and shall be entitled to such percentage of undivided interest
in the common areas and facilities as may be specified in the deed of
apartment and such percentage shall be computed by taking, as a basis,
the area of the apartment in relation to the aggregate area of all
apartments of the building. Such percentage of undivided interest under
sub-section (3) (a) in the common areas and facilities shall have a
permanent character, and shall not be altered without the written consent
of all the apartment owners and approval of the competent authority, and
which shall not be separated from the apartment to which it pertains. It
shall be deemed to be conveyed or encumbered with apartment, even

66
WRIC No. - 21821 of 2025
though such interest is not expressly mentioned in the conveyance or
other instrument. The common areas and facilities under sub-section (4)
can not be transferred and will remain undivided with the apartment.
These can not be partitioned or subject to any division and will be
enjoyed by the apartment owner under sub-section (5), without hindrance
or encroaching upon the lawful rights of the other apartment owners.”
216. In this respect, it would also be useful to have a glance at
paragraph nos. 153,154 & 155 of the judgment of the Apex Court in the
case of Supertech Limited (supra) which reads as under:-
“153. Hence, it is abundantly clear that the construction of T-16 and
T-17 in accordance with the second revised plan and the third revised
plan reduced the value of the undivided interest held by each
individual flat owner in the common areas and facilities, thereby
violating Section 5 of the U.P. Act, 1975 and Section 5 of the U.P.
Apartments Act, 2010, since the flat owners’ consent was not sought.
Further, the third revised plan encroached upon the garden area in
front of T-1, thereby resiling from the representation that had been
made to the flat owners at the time when they purchased the
apartments in T-1, without their consent. Therefore, it constituted a
violation of Section 4(1) read with the proviso to Section 4 (4) of the
U.P. Apartments Act, 2010.
154. Finally, the appellant has also tried to argue that: (i) the consent
of each individual flat owner could not be taken and it had to be taken
from the RWA, as a collective body; (ii) the RWA only came into
existence on 20.10.2013, when it adopted the Model Bye-laws under
the U.P. Apartments Act, 2010; (iii) that this was after the third revised
plan was sanctioned; and (iv) hence, there existed no association to
take consent from. The High Court has dealt with this argument in the
impugned judgment by observing: (Emerald Court Owner Resident
Welfare Assn. case, SCC OnLine All paras 20-21)
“20. As per the averments of the respondent/company, the flats
were handed over to the apartment owners by September, 2009.
The owners immediately formed Resident Welfare Association
(“RWA”) and got it registered with the Registrar Societies, in the

67
WRIC No. - 21821 of 2025
very same year. Adopting the model bye-laws, did not arise, as it
was not enforced until 2011. After notification of Model bye-laws,
the Deputy Registrar Firm, Societies and Chits, Meerut vide letter
dated 14.12.2012 informed, that pending instructions from the
Registrar Firm Societies and Chits Uttar Pradesh, no decision in
the matter can be taken in respect of Model bye-laws and its
registration. The Registrar Firm, Societies and Chits Uttar Pradesh
vide circular dated 5.2.2013 addressed to all Deputy
Registrars/District Registrars issued instructions for registration
under Apartment Act, 2010 and directed that bye laws of existing
RWA be accordingly amended. The petitioner/society vide
resolution dated 20.10.2013 adopted the Model bye-laws and
conducted elections and thereafter informed the Deputy Registrar.
21. The respondent/company has recognized the petitioners
society as RWA of the apartment owners since inception and has
continuously corresponded with the petitioner society as RWA.
Letter dated 9.10.2012, 27.9.2012, 4.9.2012 and January, 2013
addressed to the petitioner society regarding redressal of their
grievance is on record.”
155. Therefore, it is clear that: (i) the RWA came into existence in
2009 itself, when the first lot of apartment owners moved in; (ii) the
appellant was communicating with the RWA ever since; and (iii) the
RWA adopted the Model Bye-Laws under the U.P. Apartments Act,
2010, as soon as it was practicable. These averments have not been
challenged before this Court during the oral submissions by the
appellant, and hence, it will be held bound by its own conduct. In any
case, rights under the U.P. Act, 1975 and U.P. Apartments Act, 2010
have been provided to individual flat owners, and not to collective
bodies like the RWA. Hence, even the non-constitution of the RWA
will not extinguish the rights of individual flat owners. Indeed,
however, when such RWAs do exist, developers may use them to seek
a common consent from all the flat owners instead of approaching
them all individually.”

68
WRIC No. - 21821 of 2025
217. Chapter II of the Act, 2010 provides the duties and liabilities of
the Promoter. Section 4(1)(c), (d) & (f) of the said Chapter being
relevant in the present case are reproduced below:-
“4. General liabilities of promoter-(1) Any promoter who intends to sell
an apartment, shall make a full and true disclosure in writing of
following to an intending purchaser and the Competent Authority-
(a)...
(b)...
(c) the plans and specifications approved by or submitted for approval to
the local authority of the entire building of which such apartment forms
part;
(d) detail of all common areas and facilities as per the approved layout
plan or building plan;
(dd)...
(e)...
(f) the details of the design and specifications of works or and standards
of the material which have been or are proposed to be used in the
construction of the building, together with the details of all structural,
architectural drawings, layout plans, no objection certificate from Fire
Department, external and internal services plan of electricity, sewage,
drainage and water supply system etc., to be made available with the
Association;”
218. Clause (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Act, 2010 casts a
duty upon the Promoter, who intends to sell apartments, to make a full
and true disclosure in writing, the plans and specifications approved by
or submitted for approval to the local authority of the entire building of
which such apartment forms part.
219. Clause (d) of sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Act, 2010 cast a
duty upon the Promoter to furnish and disclose the details of all common
areas and facilities as per approved layout plan or building plan.

69
WRIC No. - 21821 of 2025
220. Sri Ashish Singh, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners in
support of his submission has placed the following paragraphs of sale
deed of petitioner no.1 which reads as under:-
“AND WHEREAS the VENDOR has developed and constructed a
Multi-Storied Group Housing Complex known as “GULMOHUR
GREENS” after obtaining requisite sanctions and approvals from
authorities concerned and the Ghaziabad Development Authority,
Ghaziabad has sanctioned the Group Housing Layout Plan vide their
letter no.568/THA/GH/06 dated 29.5.2006 and the construction of the
Phase-I of the said Group Housing Complex has been completed upto
the June, 2010.”
221. He has also relied upon paragraph nos.3, 9a, 9c and 10 of the sale
deed of petitioner no.1, which are being reproduced herein-below:-
“3. The VENDOR doth hereby grant to the VENDEE proportionate
undivided, indivisible or impartiable ownership rights, in the free hold
plot of land underneath the said Complex, situated in Karhera,
Ghaziabad, Pargana Loni, Tehsil & District Ghaziabad, as also in
common areas and common facilities, TO HOLD the same jointly and
in common with Purchaser(s)/Owner(s) of other Flats in the said
Complex.”
9. a. The basement, corridors, passage, stair case, mumties, lift rooms,
terraces, roofs & parapet walls in the said complex shall continue to
be property of VENDOR who shall be entitled to use them for any
purpose whatsoever. Any Flat owner or the said Maintenance
Agency/Association will not be allowed any type of
encroachment/construction or claim on the terraces, roofs, etc.
c. Any type of encroachment/construction in the entire Complex
including roads, lobbies, corridors, passage, stair cases, basement,
roof/terrace etc. will not be allowed to the Flat Owner or the
Maintenance Agency/Association.
10. The VENDEE and all persons having or lawfully or equitably
claiming any estate, right, title or interest whatsoever, in or upon the
said Flat shall from time to time and at all times hereafter keep the
said Flat, the walls of the said Flat and partition walls, sewers, drains,

70
WRIC No. - 21821 of 2025
pipes and other appurtenances belonging to the said Flat in good
tenantable repair and condition in which they have been delivered to
the VENDEE and in particular so as to support, shelter and protect
other parts of the Complex other than his/her/their premises. The
VENDEE further agrees not to do or suffer any thing to be done in or
about the said Flat in his/her/their possession which may tend to
cause damage to any flooring or ceiling or any portion of the
Complex Building over or below or adjacent to his/her/their flat or in
any manner interfere with the use thereof or of any open space, stair
case, lift, passages etc. or facilities or amenities intended for common
use.”
222. The sale deed has been executed on 07.09.2012 after the sanction
of first compounding on 15.11.2011, but the sale deed refers to sanction
of group housing layout plan dated 29.05.2006. The Promoter (vendor)
in the sale deed has not disclosed about the first compounding dated
15.11.2011.
223. Though the sale deed recites that construction of first phase of the
said Group Housing Complex has been completed upto June, 2010 but
the said assertion in the sale deed is contrary to the layout plan submitted
by the Promoter inasmuch as neither the layout plan nor the original
record discloses that project of Group Housing was divided into phases.
224. The condition no.3 of the sale deed in unequivocal terms states
that vendor grants vendee i.e. apartment owner proportionate undivided,
indivisible or impartiable ownership rights in the freehold plot of land
underneath the said complex and also in common areas and common
facilities to hold the same jointly and in common with the
purchaser/owners of other flats.
225. If the aforesaid clauses are read in the light of duties entrusted
upon the Promoter under Section 4 of the Act, 2010, it is evident that in
view of Section 4 (1) (c) and (d) of the Act, 2010, the Promoter has to
make a full and true disclosure in writing, the details envisaged in
Clauses (c) & (d) referred above.

71
WRIC No. - 21821 of 2025
226. The intended purchaser i.e. vendee purchases the apartment after
knowing the details of plans and specifications of the building of which
such apartment forms a part and the details of common areas and
facilities as per approved layout plan or building plan.
227. This implies that the vendee purchases the apartment on the
representation by the vendor i.e. Promoter about the common area and
also the common facilities as detailed in plan and specification of
building which has been disclosed to the vendee by the Promoter before
the purchase of apartment.
228. The terms and conditions of the sale deed binds the vendor
(Promoter) as well as vendee (purchaser), therefore, there cannot be any
curtailment in the specifications, common areas and facilities which are
as per the sanctioned layout plan shown to the vendee at the time of
purchase of flats.
229. If after execution of the sale deed, the Promoter (vendor) changes
the layout plan and specifications of the building which had been shown
to the vendee at the time of purchase, and such change results in
reducing the ground coverage area, common areas and other facilities,
that would amount to curtailment or reduction in percentage of
undivided interest of each apartment owner in ground coverage area,
common areas and facilities, which have a permanent character as per
Section 5 (3) (a) of the Act, 2010 and cannot be altered without written
consent of all the apartment owners. Further, if such change results in
reducing the undivided ownership right in the freehold plot of land
underneath the said complex which right has been vested in the vendee
(apartment owner) by virtue of condition no.3 of the sale deed, such
change cannot be permitted as Promoter is bound by condition no.3 of
the sale deed.
230. Therefore, inescapable conclusion from the aforesaid discussion is
that the vendor i.e. Promoter cannot make any alteration in the
specification and plan thereby reducing the common areas and facilities
as per the approved plan which has been disclosed to the apartment

72
WRIC No. - 21821 of 2025
owners (vendee) under Section 4 (1) (c) & (d) of the Act, 2010 at the
time of purchase of flats.
231. In this respect, it would be apt to reproduce paragraph no.146 of
the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Supertech Ltd. (supra) which
reads as under:-
“146. Under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 4, a promoter who
intends to sell an apartment is required to make a full disclosure in
writing to an intending purchaser and to the competent authority of the
plans and specifications approved or submitted for approval to the local
authority, of the building of which the apartment is a part. Similarly,
under clause (d), a disclosure has to be made in regard to the common
areas and facilities in accordance with the approved layout plan or
building plan. Once such a disclosure has been made, sub-section (4)
stipulates that upon the execution of a written agreement to sell, the
promoter may make minor additions or alterations as may be required
or necessary due to architectural and structural reasons duly authorised
and verified by authorised architects or engineers. Apart from these
minor additions or alterations which are contemplated by sub-section
(4), the proviso stipulates that the promoter shall not make any
alterations in the plans, specifications and other particulars “without the
previous consent of the intending purchaser”. Mr Vikas Singh’s
submission, that this provision will apply to intending purchasers of
Apex and Ceyane and not to the persons who had purchased apartments
in the existing fifteen towers, cannot be accepted. The above proviso is
evidently intended to protect persons to whom the plans and
specifications were disclosed when they were the “intending
purchasers”. Further, a construction to the contrary will run against the
grain of the intent and purpose of the statute as well its express
provisions.”
232. It is also pertinent to note that the Promoter (vendor) cannot be
allowed to change the plan and specification of the entire building of
which the apartment forms part of nor can be permitted to curtail the
common areas and facilities as per the sanctioned layout plan or building
plan to his advantage and to the detriment of vendee. If that is allowed to

73
WRIC No. - 21821 of 2025
happen, that would render the provisions of Section 4 (1) (c) & (d) of the
Apartment Act, 2010 redundant. In the instant case, it is evident from the
record that Promoter has deviated and used the FAR by extending
balconies of many apartments in several towers which establishes that
the Promoter has made these deviations only with an object to sell these
apartments on higher price to achieve maximum financial gain from sale
of such apartment.
233. The aforesaid fact discloses that vendor deliberately deviated from
his original layout plan by consuming extra FAR in the basement,
mumty, ground floor and balcony for his advantage only with a purpose
to sell the flats for higher price in which he has consumed extra FAR.
234. Therefore, we are of the view that before making any change in
plan and specification approved by the local authority of the entire
building of which the apartment forms part of and the details of common
areas and facilities as per approved layout plan or building plan, the
Promoter has to obtain written consent of apartment owners as provided
in Section 5 (3)(a) of the Act 2010.
235. Therefore, we reject the contention of learned counsel for the
respondents that so far as the alteration and specification in the plan is
within the permissible limit of FAR, the consent of apartment owners is
not required.
236. Now coming to the submission advanced by Shri Sanjeev Singh,
learned Senior Counsel appearing in Writ-C No.68187 of 2015 that
common area had also been sold is concerned, we find from the record
that said contention of Shri Sanjeev Singh, learned Senior Counsel has
substance which is evident from the noting in the original file of
Development Authority which is being reproduced herein below:-
" गाजियाबाद विकास प्राधिकरण , गाजियाबाद।
(टिप्पणियां एवं आदेश)
सहायक अभियन्ता / प्रभारी प्रवर्तन जोन -7
कृपया दांयी ओर संलग्न न्यायालय आयुक्त मेरठ मण्डल मेरठ अपील सं०-1104/2017 ब्रजभूषण
चौधरी आदि बनाम जी०डी०ए० आदि के अन्तर्गत धारा-27(2), उ०प्र० शहरी योजना और विकास

74
WRIC No. - 21821 of 2025
अधिनियम-1973 के अंतर्गत पारित आदेश तिथि 06.06.2018 में वाद सं०-439/अ०नि०
/जोन-7/2016 दिनांक-03.06.2016 के विरुद्ध योजित किया गया है। उक्त आदेश के माध्यम से
गुलमोहर ग्रीन्स, 95, कटोरी मिल, मोहननगर, गाजियाबाद में ग्रुप हाउसिंग के भूतल के भवनों के
सामने कॉमन स्पेस में स्वीकृत मानचित्र के विपरीत अधिकांश भवनों में बनायी गयी बाउण्ड्रीवाल,
आर०सी०सी० पिलर, कमरे इत्यादि को ध्वस्त किये जाने के आदेश पारित किये गये हैं। उक्त आदेश
में फ्लैट के मालिक को कॉमन स्पेस में अवैध रूप से किये गये बाउण्ड्रीवाल के निर्माण के विरुद्ध
नोटिस नहीं दिया गया। उक्त फ्लैट बिल्डर से क्रय किया गया है। बिल्डर को नोटिस जारी किया गया
है। जिसमें मा० आयुक्त महोदय के न्यायालय में अपील सं०-1104/2017 में ब्रजभूषण चौधरी आदि
में पारित आदेश के क्रम में दिनांक-06.06.2018 के अनुपालन में फ्लैट मालिक एवं जो भवन अभी
बिल्डर के पास है उसको नोटिस प्रेषित किये जाने के आदेश पारित किये गये हैं। प्रश्नगत प्रकरण में
प्राधिकरण द्वारा मात्र बिल्डर को नोटिस दिया गया था। इसलिए प्राधिकरण द्वारा पारित अपेक्षित
आदेश निरस्त किये जाने के साथ-साथ अपील आंशिक रूप से निरस्त किये जाने के आदेश पारित
किये गये हैं। उक्त प्रकरण में उपाध्यक्ष, गाजियाबाद विकास प्राधिकरण, गाजियाबाद को इस निर्देश
के साथ प्रतिप्रेषित किया जाता है कि प्रश्नगत प्रकरण में फ्लैट मालिक व जो भवन अभी बिल्डर के
पास है। दोनों के विरुद्ध नोटिस जारी किये जाने का आदेश पारित किया गया है। उक्त आदेश के
अनुपालन में स्थल का निरीक्षण किया गया। स्थल पर भूतल पर कॉमन एरिया में बाउण्ड्रीवाल का
निर्माण कार्य पूर्ण किया गया है। जिसकी अनुमानित अवधि लगभग-4 से 6 वर्ष के अन्तर्गत है।
जिसके विरुद्ध उ०प्र० नगर योजना एवं विकास अधिनियम-1973 की धारा-26 एवं 27 के अन्तर्गत
नियमानुसार अनाधिकृत निर्माणों पर वाद दायर करने व गिराने की कार्यवाही हेतु फ्लैट स्वामियों व
बिल्डर को भेजे जाने वाले नोटिस दांयी ओर संलग्न है, जो निम्नवत् हैः-
क्रम सं० अवैध निर्माणकर्ता का नाम व पता अवैध निर्माण का प्रकार
1 डा० डी०के० गुप्ता पुत्र श्री डी०आर० गुप्ता
टावर सं०-2, फ्लैट सं०-जी-2बी, गुलमोहर ग्रीन्स ग्रुप हाउसिंग,
मोहननगर, गाजियाबाद
भूतल पर कॉमन एरिया में
बाउण्ड्रीवाल का निर्माण कार्य पूर्ण।
2 श्री नरेन्द्र कोहली पुत्र श्री रामनाथ कोहली
टावर सं०-2, फ्लैट सं०-जी-2सी, गुलमोहर ग्रीन्स ग्रुप हाउसिंग,
मोहननगर, गाजियाबाद
भूतल पर कॉमन एरिया में
बाउण्ड्रीवाल का निर्माण कार्य पूर्ण।
3 श्री शंकर मित्तल पुत्र श्री कृष्ण कुमार टावर सं०-2, फ्लैट सं०-
जी-2डी, गुलमोहर ग्रीन्स ग्रुप हाउसिंग, मोहननगर, गाजियाबाद
भूतल पर कॉमन एरिया में
बाउण्ड्रीवाल का निर्माण कार्य पूर्ण।
4 श्रीमती अमृता श्रीवास्तव पत्नी श्री ए०के० श्रीवास्तव
टावर सं०-3, फ्लैट सं०-जी-3ए, गुलमोहर ग्रीन्स ग्रुप हाउसिंग,
मोहननगर, गाजियाबाद
भूतल पर कॉमन एरिया में
बाउण्ड्रीवाल का निर्माण कार्य पूर्ण।
5 श्री अनिरुद्ध अग्रवाल पुत्र श्री एस०के० अग्रवाल टावर सं०-3,
फ्लैट सं०-जी-3बी, गुलमोहर ग्रीन्स ग्रुप हाउसिंग, मोहननगर,
गाजियाबाद
भूतल पर कॉमन एरिया में
बाउण्ड्रीवाल का निर्माण कार्य पूर्ण।
6 श्रीमती रीता शर्मा पत्नी एस०एम० शर्मा टावर सं०-3, फ्लैट सं०-
जी-3सी, गुलमोहर ग्रीन्स ग्रुप हाउसिंग, मोहननगर, गाजियाबाद
भूतल पर कॉमन एरिया में
बाउण्ड्रीवाल का निर्माण कार्य पूर्ण।

75
WRIC No. - 21821 of 2025
क्रम सं० अवैध निर्माणकर्ता का नाम व पता अवैध निर्माण का प्रकार
7 श्री नकूल शर्मा टावर सं०-3, फ्लैट सं०-जी-3डी, गुलमोहर ग्रीन्स
ग्रुप हाउसिंग, मोहननगर, गाजियाबाद
भूतल पर कॉमन एरिया में
बाउण्ड्रीवाल का निर्माण कार्य पूर्ण।
8 श्री सुरेश चन्द्र सिंघल टावर सं०-4, फ्लैट सं०-जी-4ए, गुलमोहर
ग्रीन्स ग्रुप हाउसिंग, मोहननगर, गाजियाबाद
भूतल पर कॉमन एरिया में
बाउण्ड्रीवाल का निर्माण कार्य पूर्ण।
9 श्री विनोद कुमार सिंह टावर सं०-4, फ्लैट सं०-जी-4बी,
गुलमोहर ग्रीन्स ग्रुप हाउसिंग, मोहननगर, गाजियाबाद
भूतल पर कॉमन एरिया में
बाउण्ड्रीवाल का निर्माण कार्य पूर्ण।
10 डा० मंजु शर्मा टावर सं०-4, फ्लैट सं०-जी-4सी, गुलमोहर ग्रीन्स
ग्रुप हाउसिंग, मोहननगर, गाजियाबाद
भूतल पर कॉमन एरिया में
बाउण्ड्रीवाल का निर्माण कार्य पूर्ण।
11 श्री अरविन्द मुदगल टावर सं०-4, फ्लैट सं०-जी-4डी, गुलमोहर
ग्रीन्स ग्रुप हाउसिंग, मोहननगर, गाजियाबाद
भूतल पर कॉमन एरिया में
बाउण्ड्रीवाल का निर्माण कार्य पूर्ण।
12 श्रीमती मनोरमा जैन टावर सं०-5, फ्लैट सं०-जी-5ए, गुलमोहर
ग्रीन्स ग्रुप हाउसिंग, मोहननगर, गाजियाबाद
भूतल पर कॉमन एरिया में
बाउण्ड्रीवाल का निर्माण कार्य पूर्ण।
13 श्रीमती पल्लवी शर्मा टावर सं०-5, फ्लैट सं०-जी-5बी, गुलमोहर
ग्रीन्स ग्रुप हाउसिंग, मोहननगर, गाजियाबाद
भूतल पर कॉमन एरिया में
बाउण्ड्रीवाल का निर्माण कार्य पूर्ण।
14 श्रीमती नम्रता मिश्रा टावर सं०-5, फ्लैट सं०-जी-5सी, गुलमोहर
ग्रीन्स ग्रुप हाउसिंग, मोहननगर, गाजियाबाद
भूतल पर कॉमन एरिया में
बाउण्ड्रीवाल का निर्माण कार्य पूर्ण।
15 श्रीमती रेनू गुप्ता टावर सं०-5, फ्लैट सं०-जी-5डी, गुलमोहर
ग्रीन्स ग्रुप हाउसिंग, मोहननगर, गाजियाबाद
भूतल पर कॉमन एरिया में
बाउण्ड्रीवाल का निर्माण कार्य पूर्ण।
16 श्री वशिष्ट मुनी शुक्ला टावर सं०-6, फ्लैट सं०-जी-6ए, गुलमोहर
ग्रीन्स ग्रुप हाउसिंग, मोहननगर, गाजियाबाद
भूतल पर कॉमन एरिया में
बाउण्ड्रीवाल का निर्माण कार्य पूर्ण।
17 श्री ललित शर्मा टावर सं०-6, फ्लैट सं०-जी-6बी, गुलमोहर ग्रीन्स
ग्रुप हाउसिंग, मोहननगर, गाजियाबाद
भूतल पर कॉमन एरिया में
बाउण्ड्रीवाल का निर्माण कार्य पूर्ण।
18 श्री रवि शंकर टावर सं०-6, फ्लैट सं०-जी-6सी, गुलमोहर ग्रीन्स
ग्रुप हाउसिंग, मोहननगर, गाजियाबाद
भूतल पर कॉमन एरिया में
बाउण्ड्रीवाल का निर्माण कार्य पूर्ण।
19 श्री संजीव गुप्ता टावर सं०-6, फ्लैट सं०-जी-6डी, गुलमोहर
ग्रीन्स ग्रुप हाउसिंग, मोहननगर, गाजियाबाद
भूतल पर कॉमन एरिया में
बाउण्ड्रीवाल का निर्माण कार्य पूर्ण।
20 श्री प्रदीप कुमार गोयल टावर सं०-7, फ्लैट सं०-जी-7ए,
गुलमोहर ग्रीन्स ग्रुप हाउसिंग, मोहननगर, गाजियाबाद
भूतल पर कॉमन एरिया में
बाउण्ड्रीवाल का निर्माण कार्य पूर्ण।
21 श्रीमती ऊषा भण्डारी टावर सं०-7, फ्लैट सं०-जी-7बी, गुलमोहर
ग्रीन्स ग्रुप हाउसिंग, मोहननगर, गाजियाबाद
भूतल पर कॉमन एरिया में
बाउण्ड्रीवाल का निर्माण कार्य पूर्ण।
22 श्रीमती ऐसवरीया सिंघल टावर सं०-7, फ्लैट सं०-जी-7सी,
गुलमोहर ग्रीन्स ग्रुप हाउसिंग, मोहननगर, गाजियाबाद
भूतल पर कॉमन एरिया में
बाउण्ड्रीवाल का निर्माण कार्य पूर्ण।
23 श्री उमेश शर्मा टावर सं०-7, फ्लैट सं०-जी-7डी, गुलमोहर ग्रीन्स
ग्रुप हाउसिंग, मोहननगर, गाजियाबाद
भूतल पर कॉमन एरिया में
बाउण्ड्रीवाल का निर्माण कार्य पूर्ण।
24 श्री प्रमोद बंसल टावर सं०-8, फ्लैट सं०-जी-8ए, गुलमोहर ग्रीन्स
ग्रुप हाउसिंग, मोहननगर, गाजियाबाद
भूतल पर कॉमन एरिया में
बाउण्ड्रीवाल का निर्माण कार्य पूर्ण।
25 श्री अश्वनी दीक्षित टावर सं०-8, फ्लैट सं०-जी-8बी, गुलमोहर
ग्रीन्स ग्रुप हाउसिंग, मोहननगर, गाजियाबाद
भूतल पर कॉमन एरिया में
बाउण्ड्रीवाल का निर्माण कार्य पूर्ण।
26 श्री विजय जिन्दल टावर सं०-8, फ्लैट सं०-जी-8सी, गुलमोहर
ग्रीन्स ग्रुप हाउसिंग, मोहननगर, गाजियाबाद
भूतल पर कॉमन एरिया में
बाउण्ड्रीवाल का निर्माण कार्य पूर्ण।
27 श्री जे०के० बाली टावर सं०-8, फ्लैट सं०-जी-8डी, गुलमोहर
ग्रीन्स ग्रुप हाउसिंग, मोहननगर, गाजियाबाद
भूतल पर कॉमन एरिया में
बाउण्ड्रीवाल का निर्माण कार्य पूर्ण।

76
WRIC No. - 21821 of 2025
क्रम सं० अवैध निर्माणकर्ता का नाम व पता अवैध निर्माण का प्रकार
28 श्री अनुरागदीप टावर सं०-9, फ्लैट सं०-जी-9ए, गुलमोहर ग्रीन्स
ग्रुप हाउसिंग, मोहननगर, गाजियाबाद
भूतल पर कॉमन एरिया में
बाउण्ड्रीवाल का निर्माण कार्य पूर्ण।
29 श्री विजय जिन्दल, डायरेक्टर गुलमोहर ग्रीन्स ग्रुप हाउसिंग,
मोहननगर, टावर सं०-9, फ्लैट सं०-जी-9बी, गुलमोहर ग्रीन्स ग्रुप
हाउसिंग, मोहननगर, गाजियाबाद
भूतल पर कॉमन एरिया में
बाउण्ड्रीवाल का निर्माण कार्य पूर्ण।
30 श्रीमती मीनू गम्भीर टावर सं०-9, फ्लैट सं०-जी-9सी, गुलमोहर
ग्रीन्स ग्रुप हाउसिंग, मोहननगर, गाजियाबाद
भूतल पर कॉमन एरिया में
बाउण्ड्रीवाल का निर्माण कार्य पूर्ण।
31 श्री कामेश मेतो टावर सं०-9, फ्लैट सं०-जी-9डी, गुलमोहर ग्रीन्स
ग्रुप हाउसिंग, मोहननगर, गाजियाबाद
भूतल पर कॉमन एरिया में
बाउण्ड्रीवाल का निर्माण कार्य पूर्ण।
32 श्री नीरज सिंह टावर सं०-10, फ्लैट सं०-जी-10ए, गुलमोहर
ग्रीन्स ग्रुप हाउसिंग, मोहननगर, गाजियाबाद
भूतल पर कॉमन एरिया में
बाउण्ड्रीवाल का निर्माण कार्य पूर्ण।
33 श्री सम्राट यादव टावर सं०-10, फ्लैट सं०-जी-10बी, गुलमोहर
ग्रीन्स ग्रुप हाउसिंग, मोहननगर, गाजियाबाद
भूतल पर कॉमन एरिया में
बाउण्ड्रीवाल का निर्माण कार्य पूर्ण।
34 श्री अभय कृष्ण वर्मा टावर सं०-10, फ्लैट सं०-जी-10सी,
गुलमोहर ग्रीन्स ग्रुप हाउसिंग, मोहननगर, गाजियाबाद
भूतल पर कॉमन एरिया में
बाउण्ड्रीवाल का निर्माण कार्य पूर्ण।
35 श्री तुषार श्रीवास्तव टावर सं०-10, फ्लैट सं०-जी-10डी,
गुलमोहर ग्रीन्स ग्रुप हाउसिंग, मोहननगर, गाजियाबाद
भूतल पर कॉमन एरिया में
बाउण्ड्रीवाल का निर्माण कार्य पूर्ण।
36 श्रीमती शैली शर्मा टावर सं०-11, फ्लैट सं०-जी-11ए, गुलमोहर
ग्रीन्स ग्रुप हाउसिंग, मोहननगर, गाजियाबाद
भूतल पर कॉमन एरिया में
बाउण्ड्रीवाल का निर्माण कार्य पूर्ण।
37 श्री राजेश कुमार गुप्ता टावर सं०-11, फ्लैट सं०-जी-11बी,
गुलमोहर ग्रीन्स ग्रुप हाउसिंग, मोहननगर, गाजियाबाद
भूतल पर कॉमन एरिया में
बाउण्ड्रीवाल का निर्माण कार्य पूर्ण।
38 श्रीमती सुधा गोयल टावर सं०-11, फ्लैट सं०-जी-11सी,
गुलमोहर ग्रीन्स ग्रुप हाउसिंग, मोहननगर, गाजियाबाद
भूतल पर कॉमन एरिया में
बाउण्ड्रीवाल का निर्माण कार्य पूर्ण।
39 श्री जितेन्द्र राजपूत टावर सं०-11, फ्लैट सं०-जी-11डी,
गुलमोहर ग्रीन्स ग्रुप हाउसिंग, मोहननगर, गाजियाबाद
भूतल पर कॉमन एरिया में
बाउण्ड्रीवाल का निर्माण कार्य पूर्ण।
40 श्री लक्ष्मी नारायण टावर सं०-12, फ्लैट सं०-जी-12ए, गुलमोहर
ग्रीन्स ग्रुप हाउसिंग, मोहननगर, गाजियाबाद
भूतल पर कॉमन एरिया में
बाउण्ड्रीवाल का निर्माण कार्य पूर्ण।
41 श्री पुलकित बंसल टावर सं०-12, फ्लैट सं०-जी-12बी,
गुलमोहर ग्रीन्स ग्रुप हाउसिंग, मोहननगर, गाजियाबाद
भूतल पर कॉमन एरिया में
बाउण्ड्रीवाल का निर्माण कार्य पूर्ण।
42 श्री विजय जिन्दल, डायरेक्टर गुलमोहर ग्रीन्स ग्रुप हाउसिंग,
मोहननगर, टावर सं०-12, फ्लैट सं०-जी-12सी, गुलमोहर ग्रीन्स
ग्रुप हाउसिंग, मोहननगर, गाजियाबाद।
भूतल पर कॉमन एरिया में
बाउण्ड्रीवाल का निर्माण कार्य पूर्ण।
43 श्री बृजभूषण चौधरी टावर सं०-12, फ्लैट सं०-जी-12डी,
गुलमोहर ग्रीन्स ग्रुप हाउसिंग, मोहननगर, गाजियाबाद।
भूतल पर कॉमन एरिया में
बाउण्ड्रीवाल का निर्माण कार्य पूर्ण।
44 श्री श्याम नारायण दत्त टावर सं०-13, फ्लैट सं०-जी-13ए,
गुलमोहर ग्रीन्स ग्रुप हाउसिंग, मोहननगर, गाजियाबाद।
भूतल पर कॉमन एरिया में
बाउण्ड्रीवाल का निर्माण कार्य पूर्ण।
45 श्री गरिमा दीक्षित टावर सं०-13, फ्लैट सं०-जी-13बी, गुलमोहर
ग्रीन्स ग्रुप हाउसिंग, मोहननगर, गाजियाबाद
भूतल पर कॉमन एरिया में
बाउण्ड्रीवाल का निर्माण कार्य पूर्ण।
46 श्री कपिल चौधरी टावर सं०-13, फ्लैट सं०-जी-13सी, गुलमोहर
ग्रीन्स ग्रुप हाउसिंग, मोहननगर, गाजियाबाद
भूतल पर कॉमन एरिया में
बाउण्ड्रीवाल का निर्माण कार्य पूर्ण।
47 श्री सुभाष कौशिक टावर सं०-13, फ्लैट सं०-जी-13डी,
गुलमोहर ग्रीन्स ग्रुप हाउसिंग, मोहननगर, गाजियाबाद
भूतल पर कॉमन एरिया में
बाउण्ड्रीवाल का निर्माण कार्य पूर्ण।

77
WRIC No. - 21821 of 2025
क्रम सं० अवैध निर्माणकर्ता का नाम व पता अवैध निर्माण का प्रकार
48 श्रीमती बीना सक्सैना टावर सं०-14, फ्लैट सं०-जी-14ए,
गुलमोहर ग्रीन्स ग्रुप हाउसिंग, मोहननगर, गाजियाबाद
भूतल पर कॉमन एरिया में
बाउण्ड्रीवाल का निर्माण कार्य पूर्ण।
49 श्री मोहन लाल वर्मा टावर सं०-14, फ्लैट सं०-जी-14बी,
गुलमोहर ग्रीन्स ग्रुप हाउसिंग, मोहननगर, गाजियाबाद
भूतल पर कॉमन एरिया में
बाउण्ड्रीवाल का निर्माण कार्य पूर्ण।
50 श्री गणेश कोहली टावर सं०-14, फ्लैट सं०-जी-14सी, गुलमोहर
ग्रीन्स ग्रुप हाउसिंग, मोहननगर, गाजियाबाद
भूतल पर कॉमन एरिया में
बाउण्ड्रीवाल का निर्माण कार्य पूर्ण।
51 श्री गोगना टावर सं०-14, फ्लैट सं०-जी-14डी, गुलमोहर ग्रीन्स
ग्रुप हाउसिंग, मोहननगर, गाजियाबाद
भूतल पर कॉमन एरिया में
बाउण्ड्रीवाल का निर्माण कार्य पूर्ण।
52 श्रीमती रूकमणी अग्रवाल टावर सं०-15, फ्लैट सं०-जी-15ए,
गुलमोहर ग्रीन्स ग्रुप हाउसिंग, मोहननगर, गाजियाबाद
भूतल पर कॉमन एरिया में
बाउण्ड्रीवाल का निर्माण कार्य पूर्ण।
53 श्रीमती अनीता रानी टावर सं०-15, फ्लैट सं०-जी-15बी,
गुलमोहर ग्रीन्स ग्रुप हाउसिंग, मोहननगर, गाजियाबाद
भूतल पर कॉमन एरिया में
बाउण्ड्रीवाल का निर्माण कार्य पूर्ण।
54 श्री पवन कुमार टावर सं०-15, फ्लैट सं०-जी-15सी, गुलमोहर
ग्रीन्स ग्रुप हाउसिंग, मोहननगर, गाजियाबाद
भूतल पर कॉमन एरिया में
बाउण्ड्रीवाल का निर्माण कार्य पूर्ण।
55 श्रीमती रीतू टावर सं०-15, फ्लैट सं०-जी-15डी, गुलमोहर ग्रीन्स
ग्रुप हाउसिंग, मोहननगर, गाजियाबाद
भूतल पर कॉमन एरिया में
बाउण्ड्रीवाल का निर्माण कार्य पूर्ण।
56 श्री संजीव गुप्ता टावर सं०-24, फ्लैट सं०-जी-24ए, गुलमोहर
ग्रीन्स ग्रुप हाउसिंग, मोहननगर, गाजियाबाद
भूतल पर कॉमन एरिया में
बाउण्ड्रीवाल का निर्माण कार्य पूर्ण।
57 श्री अंकुर दूबे टावर सं०-24, फ्लैट सं०-जी-24डी, गुलमोहर
ग्रीन्स ग्रुप हाउसिंग, मोहननगर, गाजियाबाद
भूतल पर कॉमन एरिया में
बाउण्ड्रीवाल का निर्माण कार्य पूर्ण।
58 श्री अंकुर शर्मा टावर सं०-25, फ्लैट सं०-जी-25ए, गुलमोहर
ग्रीन्स ग्रुप हाउसिंग, मोहननगर, गाजियाबाद
भूतल पर कॉमन एरिया में
बाउण्ड्रीवाल का निर्माण कार्य पूर्ण।
59 श्री असगर अली टावर सं०-25, फ्लैट सं०-जी-25डी, गुलमोहर
ग्रीन्स ग्रुप हाउसिंग, मोहननगर, गाजियाबाद
भूतल पर कॉमन एरिया में
बाउण्ड्रीवाल का निर्माण कार्य पूर्ण।
60 श्री एस०के० मित्तल टावर सं०-26, फ्लैट सं०-जी-26ए,
गुलमोहर ग्रीन्स ग्रुप हाउसिंग, मोहननगर, गाजियाबाद
भूतल पर कॉमन एरिया में
बाउण्ड्रीवाल का निर्माण कार्य पूर्ण।
61 श्री पीयूष शर्मा टावर सं०-26, फ्लैट सं०-जी-26डी, गुलमोहर
ग्रीन्स ग्रुप हाउसिंग, मोहननगर, गाजियाबाद
भूतल पर कॉमन एरिया में
बाउण्ड्रीवाल का निर्माण कार्य पूर्ण।
62 श्री हर्ष गुप्ता टावर सं०-33, फ्लैट सं०-जी-33ए, गुलमोहर ग्रीन्स
ग्रुप हाउसिंग, मोहननगर, गाजियाबाद
भूतल पर कॉमन एरिया में
बाउण्ड्रीवाल का निर्माण कार्य पूर्ण।
63 श्री अश्वनी कुमार मिश्रा टावर सं०-33, फ्लैट सं०-जी-33बी,
गुलमोहर ग्रीन्स ग्रुप हाउसिंग, मोहननगर, गाजियाबाद
भूतल पर कॉमन एरिया में
बाउण्ड्रीवाल का निर्माण कार्य पूर्ण।
64 श्री मनोज शुक्ला टावर सं०-33, फ्लैट सं०-जी-33सी, गुलमोहर
ग्रीन्स ग्रुप हाउसिंग, मोहननगर, गाजियाबाद
भूतल पर कॉमन एरिया में
बाउण्ड्रीवाल का निर्माण कार्य पूर्ण।
65 श्री नवीन जैन टावर सं०-33, फ्लैट सं०-जी-33डी, गुलमोहर
ग्रीन्स ग्रुप हाउसिंग, मोहननगर, गाजियाबाद
भूतल पर कॉमन एरिया में
बाउण्ड्रीवाल का निर्माण कार्य पूर्ण।
66 श्री राजीव अरोरा टावर सं०-34, फ्लैट सं०-जी-34ए, गुलमोहर
ग्रीन्स ग्रुप हाउसिंग, मोहननगर, गाजियाबाद
भूतल पर कॉमन एरिया में
बाउण्ड्रीवाल का निर्माण कार्य पूर्ण।
67 श्री अतीन अग्रवाल टावर सं०-34, फ्लैट सं०-जी-34बी,
गुलमोहर ग्रीन्स ग्रुप हाउसिंग, मोहननगर, गाजियाबाद
भूतल पर कॉमन एरिया में
बाउण्ड्रीवाल का निर्माण कार्य पूर्ण।
68 श्री भरत अग्रवाल टावर सं०-34, फ्लैट सं०-जी-34सी, गुलमोहर
ग्रीन्स ग्रुप हाउसिंग, मोहननगर, गाजियाबाद
भूतल पर कॉमन एरिया में
बाउण्ड्रीवाल का निर्माण कार्य पूर्ण।

78
WRIC No. - 21821 of 2025
क्रम सं० अवैध निर्माणकर्ता का नाम व पता अवैध निर्माण का प्रकार
69 श्री विजय जिन्दल, डायरेक्टर गुलमोहर ग्रीन्स ग्रुप हाउसिंग,
मोहननगर, टावर सं०-34, फ्लैट सं०-जी-34डी, गुलमोहर ग्रीन्स
ग्रुप हाउसिंग, मोहननगर, गाजियाबाद।
भूतल पर कॉमन एरिया में
बाउण्ड्रीवाल का निर्माण कार्य पूर्ण।
70 श्री मुकुल सिंघल टावर सं०-35, फ्लैट सं०-जी-35ए, गुलमोहर
ग्रीन्स ग्रुप हाउसिंग, मोहननगर, गाजियाबाद
भूतल पर कॉमन एरिया में
बाउण्ड्रीवाल का निर्माण कार्य पूर्ण।
71 श्री मोहन गुप्ता टावर सं०-35, फ्लैट सं०-जी-35बी, गुलमोहर
ग्रीन्स ग्रुप हाउसिंग, मोहननगर, गाजियाबाद
भूतल पर कॉमन एरिया में
बाउण्ड्रीवाल का निर्माण कार्य पूर्ण।
72 श्रीमती विभा शर्मा टावर सं०-35, फ्लैट सं०-जी-35सी,
गुलमोहर ग्रीन्स ग्रुप हाउसिंग, मोहननगर, गाजियाबाद
भूतल पर कॉमन एरिया में
बाउण्ड्रीवाल का निर्माण कार्य पूर्ण।
73 श्री अनिल सबरवाल टावर सं०-35, फ्लैट सं०-जी-35डी,
गुलमोहर ग्रीन्स ग्रुप हाउसिंग, मोहननगर, गाजियाबाद
भूतल पर कॉमन एरिया में
बाउण्ड्रीवाल का निर्माण कार्य पूर्ण।
74 श्रीमती सुष्मि ता सिंघल टावर सं०-30, फ्लैट सं०-जी-30ए,
गुलमोहर ग्रीन्स ग्रुप हाउसिंग, मोहननगर, गाजियाबाद
भूतल पर कॉमन एरिया में
बाउण्ड्रीवाल का निर्माण कार्य पूर्ण।
75 श्री रामेन्द्र सिंह टावर सं०-30, फ्लैट सं०-जी-30बी, गुलमोहर
ग्रीन्स ग्रुप हाउसिंग, मोहननगर, गाजियाबाद
भूतल पर कॉमन एरिया में
बाउण्ड्रीवाल का निर्माण कार्य पूर्ण।
76 श्री अमन जैन टावर सं०-30, फ्लैट सं०-जी-30सी, गुलमोहर
ग्रीन्स ग्रुप हाउसिंग, मोहननगर, गाजियाबाद
भूतल पर कॉमन एरिया में
बाउण्ड्रीवाल का निर्माण कार्य पूर्ण।
77 श्री राकेश कुमार सुयाल टावर सं०-30, फ्लैट सं०-जी-30डी,
गुलमोहर ग्रीन्स ग्रुप हाउसिंग, मोहननगर, गाजियाबाद
भूतल पर कॉमन एरिया में
बाउण्ड्रीवाल का निर्माण कार्य पूर्ण।
78 श्री सतीश मोहन टावर सं०-31, फ्लैट सं०-जी-31ए, गुलमोहर
ग्रीन्स ग्रुप हाउसिंग, मोहननगर, गाजियाबाद
भूतल पर कॉमन एरिया में
बाउण्ड्रीवाल का निर्माण कार्य पूर्ण।
79 श्रीमती निशिता अरोरा टावर सं०-31, फ्लैट सं०-जी-31बी,
गुलमोहर ग्रीन्स ग्रुप हाउसिंग, मोहननगर, गाजियाबाद
भूतल पर कॉमन एरिया में
बाउण्ड्रीवाल का निर्माण कार्य पूर्ण।
80 श्री अजय कुमार बंसल टावर सं०-31, फ्लैट सं०-जी-31सी,
गुलमोहर ग्रीन्स ग्रुप हाउसिंग, मोहननगर, गाजियाबाद
भूतल पर कॉमन एरिया में
बाउण्ड्रीवाल का निर्माण कार्य पूर्ण।
81 श्री शिव कुमार जेटली टावर सं०-31, फ्लैट सं०-जी-31डी,
गुलमोहर ग्रीन्स ग्रुप हाउसिंग, मोहननगर, गाजियाबाद
भूतल पर कॉमन एरिया में
बाउण्ड्रीवाल का निर्माण कार्य पूर्ण।
82 श्री अवधेश कुमार प्रसाद टावर सं०-32, फ्लैट सं०-जी-32ए,
गुलमोहर ग्रीन्स ग्रुप हाउसिंग, मोहननगर, गाजियाबाद
भूतल पर कॉमन एरिया में
बाउण्ड्रीवाल का निर्माण कार्य पूर्ण।
83 श्रीमती शालनी कौशिक टावर सं०-32, फ्लैट सं०-जी-32बी,
गुलमोहर ग्रीन्स ग्रुप हाउसिंग, मोहननगर, गाजियाबाद
भूतल पर कॉमन एरिया में
बाउण्ड्रीवाल का निर्माण कार्य पूर्ण।
84 श्रीमती नीना बजाज टावर सं०-32, फ्लैट सं०-जी-32सी,
गुलमोहर ग्रीन्स ग्रुप हाउसिंग, मोहननगर, गाजियाबाद
भूतल पर कॉमन एरिया में
बाउण्ड्रीवाल का निर्माण कार्य पूर्ण।
85 श्री नवनीत कुमार सुयाल टावर सं०-32, फ्लैट सं०-जी-32डी,
गुलमोहर ग्रीन्स ग्रुप हाउसिंग, मोहननगर, गाजियाबाद
भूतल पर कॉमन एरिया में
बाउण्ड्रीवाल का निर्माण कार्य पूर्ण।
उपरोक्तानुसार गुलमोहर ग्रीन्स ग्रुप हाउसिंग के फ्लैट स्वामियों एवं बिल्डर विजय जिन्दल, डायरेक्टर,
गुलमोहर ग्रीन्स, ग्रुप हाउसिंग, मोहननगर, गाजियाबाद को उ०प्र० नगर योजना एवं विकास
अधिनियम-1973 की धारा 26, 27 के अन्तर्गत भेजे जाने वाले नोटिस का प्रारूप तैयार कर दांयी
ओर संलग्न कर दिया गया है। कृपया अवलोकनोपरान्त हस्ताक्षर करने का कष्ट करें।"

79
WRIC No. - 21821 of 2025
237. The allegation of selling common areas is also substantiated by the
letter of V.K. Sonkar, Prabhari Pravartan, Zone-7 dated 03.06.2016, which
is being reproduced herein below:-
" श्री एस०एस० यादव , अवर अभियंता द्वारा दि०-13.04.2016 को यह प्रथम सूचना
रिपोर्ट प्रस्तुत की गई कि "भवन/भूखण्ड- गुलमोहर ग्रीन, 95 कटोरी मिल मोहननगर,
गाजियाबाद में ग्रुप हाउसिंग के भूतल के भवनों के सामने कॉमन स्पेस में स्वीकृत मानचित्र
के विपरीत अधिकांश भवनों में बाउण्ड्रीवाल लगभग -3 वर्ष पूर्व निर्मित है एवं कुछ में उक्त
कॉमन स्पेस में कमरे भी बनाये गये है। वर्तमान में भी कुछ भवनों के कॉमन स्पेस में
आर०सी०सी० पिलर के साथ बाउण्ड्रीवाल व कमरे बनाये जा रहे है व दीवार पर नियम
विरुद्ध टाइल्स आदि लगायी जा रही है। बेसमेन्ट में अनाधिकृत रूप से कमरे बने हुए है। "
उनका यह कार्य उ०प्र० नगर योजना एवं विकास अधिनियम , 1973 की धारा -14 के
प्रावधान के विपरीत है।
अवैध निर्माणकर्ता को कारण बताओ नोटिस जारी किया गया कि वह कारण बताये कि
क्यों न उनके उक्त अनाधिकृत निर्माण को प्राधिकरण द्वारा गिरा दिया जाएं एवं उनके
विरुद्ध वाद समक्ष न्यायालय में क्यों न दायर कर दिया जाए। नोटिस की तामील विपक्ष को
विधिवत कराई गई व सुनवाई हेतु पूर्ण अवसर दिया गया उक्त अनुसार कोई सन्तोषजनक
उत्तर दाखि ल करने अथवा निर्माण को शमन कराने में असमर्थ रहें। अत: किया गया
निर्माण पूर्ण अनाधिकृत एवं गिराने योग्य है। अतः अवर अभियंता की प्रथम सूचना रिपोर्ट
से सहमत होकर मैं उत्तर प्रदेश नगर योजना एवं विकास अधिनियम-1973 की धारा-27
के अन्तर्गत स्थल पर किये गये अनाधिकृत निर्माण को गिराने के आदेश पारित करता हूँ।
अनाधिकृत निर्माण को गिराने की कार्यवाही नोटिस प्राप्त होने के 15 दिन के अन्दर विपक्षी
स्वयं पूरा करेंगे। यदि वह ऐसा नही करते है, तो प्राधिकरण द्वारा उक्त अनाधिकृत निर्माण
को गिरा दिया जाएगा। जिसके हर्जे-खर्चे की वसूली विपक्ष से राजस्व के बकाया भी भाँति
की जायेगी। उत्तर प्रदेश नगर योजना एवं विकास अधिनियम-1973 की धारा-49 के
अन्तर्गत यह आदेश भी पारित किये जाते है कि विपक्ष के विरुद्ध उक्त एक्ट की धारा-26
के अन्तर्गत सक्षम न्यायालय में वाद भी दायर कर दिया जाए।"
238. Section 5(4) the Act, 2010 prohibits the sale of common areas and
facilities and as such sale of common areas and facilities is an offence
under Section 25 of the Act, 2010 and calls for an action under Section 25
of the Act 2010.
239. In the instant case, the letter dated 10.04.2018 of the Junior
Engineer (Enforcement) Zone-7 to Station House Officer, Sahibabad,

80
WRIC No. - 21821 of 2025
Ghaziabad for registering F.I.R. against the Promoter (Developer)
establishes that the Promoter has sold the common areas. Thereafter, an
FIR was registered under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C. on 11.04.2018
bearing Case Crime No. 0749 of 2018. The contents of FIR is reproduced
herein below:-
“महोदय,
कृपया मै0 फ्रैंड लैण्ड डेवलपर्स, 95, कटोरी मिल, मोहननगर, गाजियाबाद द्वारा गुलमोहर
ग्रीन्स ग्रुप हाउसिंग का स्थल पर निर्माण कराया गया है । उक्त ग्रुप हाउसिंग का प्राधिकरण
द्वारा दिनांक 13.01.2015 को उपाध्यक्ष महोदय द्वारा मानचित्र स्वीकृत प्रदान की गयी थी ।
जिसमें विकासकर्ता द्वारा सम्पूर्ति प्रमाण पत्र प्राप्त किये बिना कब्जा दिये जाने व स्वीकृत
मानचित्र में प्रत्येक टावर के ग्राउण्ड फ्लोर पर निर्मित फ्लैटों के सामने कॉमन भूमि छोड़ते हुए
स्वीकृत प्रदान किया गया है । उक्त कॉमन भूमि का ग्रीनरी के रूप में उपयोग फ्लैट स्वामियों
द्वारा किया जाना है। जिसका भूस्वामित्व विकासकर्ता के पास निहित रहेगा परन्तु विकासकर्ता
द्वारा उक्त टावर के ग्राउण्ड फ्लोर की ग्रीनरी हेतु कॉमन भूमि को अनाधिकृत रूप से रजिस्ट्री
कर दी गयी है जोकि नियम विरुद्ध है । उक्त कॉमन भूमि की रजिस्ट्री अनाधिकृत रूप से किये
जाने पर श्री विजय जिन्दल, डायरेक्टर मै0 फ्रैंड लैण्ड डेवलपर्स दोषी पाये गये । उक्त के
विरुद्ध प्राथमिकी दर्ज कर आवश्यक कार्यवाही करने का कष्ट करें । उक्त जमीन की रजिस्ट्री
डायरेक्टर श्री विजय जिन्दल द्वारा बेईमानी से व आर्थिक लाभ कमाने के लिए बेची गई है ।"
240. We are shocked to see that the Final Report is submitted without
enquiring into the allegations in the FIR. The final report has been
submitted on the ground that the dispute is of civil nature. The Final Report
is being reproduced herein below:-
“श्रीमान जी मुकदमा उपरोक्त में अब तक की विवेचना से यह तथ्य प्रकाश मे आये है कि
वादीमुकदमा श्री सत्यप्रकाश यादव गाजियाबाद विकास प्राधिकरण मे कार्यरत है जिनके
द्वारा यह अभियोग पंजीकृत कराया गया है । जिसमे विवेचना से यह सिद्ध होता है कि मा०
उच्च न्यायालय मे रिट सं०68187/15 विचाराधिन है एवं उपरोक्त समनीय प्रकरण है एवं
सिविल प्रवृति का है । जिसमे वाद दायर किया जाना न्यायोचित था लेकिन विकास
प्राधिकरण द्वारा उक्त अभियोग पंजीकृत करा दिया गया एवं विकास प्राधिकरण द्वारा भी यह
बात स्वीकार की गयी है कि उपरक प्रकरण समनीय व सिविल प्रवृति का है अतः इस
परिस्थि ति मे विवेचना का किया जाना न्यायोचित प्रतीत नही होता है। अतः मुकदमा उपरोक्त
की विवेचना जरिये अन्तिम रिपोर्ट समाप्त की जाती है । महोदय से अनुरोध है कि अन्तिम
रिपोर्ट स्वीकृत करने की कृपा करे ।"

81
WRIC No. - 21821 of 2025
241. It is a case where record establishes that the police authorities
have colluded with the Promoter in submitting final report inasmuch as
the allegations in the FIR was that the Promoter has delivered the
possession of the apartment without obtaining completion certificate and
has sold the common area which was to be left for the purposes of
greenery in the Group Housing Scheme. Considering the fact that it is a
case which establishes on record the allegations made in the FIR, the
final report has been submitted without enquiry and investigation by the
Police Authority.
242. The fact that police has not conducted the investigation properly is
also evident from the affidavit of Surender Singh who was also the
investigating officer in the aforesaid case crime number. The affidavit
reveals that he did not make any effort to inquire about the correctness of
the allegations inasmuch as he did not make any spot inspection to find
out as to whether any common area had been sold by the Promoter nor
he made any effort to visit the office of the promoter and record
statement of the Promoter against whom serious allegations of violation
of selling common area has been made.
243. He has done only paper work by recording the statement of one
Sanjeev Sharma who was the general manager of the Gulmohar Green
Society, and had no concern whatsoever with the offence which is
evident from the averments made in paragraph nos.13 to 22 of the
affidavit of Surendera Singh, Investigating Officer dated 11.09.2026.
The aforesaid paragraphs are being reproduced below:-
“13. That the deponent perused the case diary and the details of earlier
investigation carried out by the earlier investigating officers were duly
entered by the deponent in the case diary vide CD No.8 prepared on
24.11.2021.
14. That on 03.01.2022, the deponent served notice upon the informant
under section 160 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 requiring
him to give statement within 3 days.

82
WRIC No. - 21821 of 2025
15. That the informant came to the police station on 25.02.2022 and had
given his statement under section 161 Cr.P.C., the statement of the
informant Shri Satya Prakash Yadav, Assistant Engineer, Ghaziabad
Development Authority (posted in the East Zone of the Development
Authority at the time of recording of statement) was duly entered vide
CD No.10 prepared on 25.02.2022. The informant has stated that he had
lodged the first information report in pursuance of the direction issued
by his superior authorities. He further stated that defying the sanctioned
map issued by the Ghaziabad Development Authority, the accused Vijay
Jindal sold the green area in favour of the flat owners by way of
registered sale deeds and the flat owners have taken illegal possession
over the same. The informant further stated that the said act was done by
the accused to gain wrongfully.
16. That during interrogation, the informant was asked by the deponent
with regard to the ownership of the land and the informant had stated
that the ownership of the land was with the accused Vijay Jindal.
However, the sale deeds got registered by him, were not in accordance
with the sanctioned map. When the deponent put a query to the
informant, as to how there had been a cheating if the accused was the
owner of the land. The informant stated that it was correct that the land
was owned by accused, but, the requisite amount to be deposited with
the Ghaziabad Development Authority with regard to the land, had not
been deposited by the accused and sale deeds were executed. There
would have been no case lodged if the accused had deposited the fine.
17. That thereafter, the deponent served notice under section 91 of
Cr.P.C., to the accused and asked him to get his statement recorded
within 3 days.
18. That thereafter, on 15.05.2022, the General Manager of the
Gulmohar Green Society, Shri Sanjeev Sharma appeared on behalf of
the accused and got recorded his statement. In his statement Shri
Sanjeev Sharma stated that he had been discharging the duties of
General Manager in the Society and he was having full knowledge of
the matter. He further informed that Writ Petition No.68187 of 2015 was
pending in the Hon'ble High Court and the development authority had
also admitted the facts of the writ petition and had further determined

83
WRIC No. - 21821 of 2025
the compounding fee after enquiry to the tune of Rs.9,66,96,929.00. It
was further informed by Shri Sanjiv Sharma that the development
authority had admitted that in lieu of the registered sale deeds executed
the compounding fee was require to be deposited with the development
authority. It was further stated by him that the Ghaziabad Development
Authority had issued order regarding imposition of fine. Shri Sanjiv
Sharma further stated that no forged document had been prepared by
Gulmohar Society, nor any one had been cheated. He further provided
the copy of the order passed in the aforesaid writ petition. The statement
had been entered in CD No.12 prepared on 15.05.2022.
19. That after recording the statement of Shri Sanjiv Sharma, it appeared
to the deponent that the matter was not concerned with the offence of
cheating, and moreover, as per the allegations and the investigation, the
elements of criminality were not found. The aforesaid facts was
mentioned by the deponent in CD No.12 dated 15.05.2022.
20. That however, in order to find out the correct position, the deponent
recorded the supplementary statement (Majid Bayan) of the informant
Shri Satya Prakash Yadav on 13.06.2022 and entered the same vide CD
No.13 prepared on 13.06.2022. In his supplementary statement the
informant stated that it was true that the owner of the land was Shri
Vijay Jindal, the Director of Gulmohar Society and he had sold the land
without getting the sanctioned map. The informant further stated that the
development authority suffered loss of revenue on account of the
execution of sale deeds. He further stated that the matter was
compoundable and a case was to be filed before the Hon'ble Court but in
compliance of the directions issued by his superiors, he had lodged the
first information report.
21. That the deponent on the basis of the evidence collected during
investigation had found that the matter was compoundable and of civil
nature, therefore, the deponent had concluded the investigation. The
aforesaid facts is mentioned in CD No.13 prepared on 13.06.2022.
22. That thereafter, the final report was submitted by the deponent on
21.06.2022 before the then Circle Officer, Shri Abijith R. Shankar (IPS)
for approval.”

84
WRIC No. - 21821 of 2025
244. Therefore, in such view of the fact, we find that it is a fit case
where a direction be issued to the Commissioner of Police, Ghaziabad to
depute an Officer not below the rank of Assistant Commissioner of
Police to make a fresh investigation in respect of allegations made in the
FIR.
245. In compliance of the order of this Court dated 10.09.2026, Abijith
R Shankar (the then Circle Officer, Ghaziabad), presently posted as
Superintendent of Police, District Deoria has filed an affidavit in which
he has stated that he was the Circle Officer, Sahibabad, District
Ghaziabad from 04.01.2022 to 29.07.2022, and the Final Report was
submitted before the competent Court on 24.08.2022. The averment in
the affidavit reflects that an attempt has been made not to disclose the
name of approving officer of the Final Report. Paragraph nos. 8 to 13 of
the affidavit of Abijith R Shankar are being reproduced below:-
“8. That it is most respectfully submitted that the deponent had been
posted as Circle Officer Sahibabad, District Ghaziabad from 04.01.2022
to 29.07.2022, whereas the Final Report in the aforesaid case was filed
before the Competent Court on 24.08.2022. Therefore, it is not clear to
the deponent whether the aforesaid Final Report was forwarded by him.
Further, in the letter dated 11.09.2026 sent by the Assistant
Commissioner of Police, Sahibabad, Commissionerate Ghaziabad, to the
Commissioner of Police Headquarters, Commissionerate Ghaziabad, it
has been stated that clarification is required as to from which
supervisory officer the approval was obtained and the Final Report was
forwarded to the Court.
9. That it is further submitted that, Letter No. Ba-01/2026/writ dated
11.09.2026, has been forwarded by the Additional Commissioner of
Police, Headquarters, Commissionerate Ghaziabad, to the Deputy
Commissioner of Police, Trans-Hindon, Commissionerate Ghaziabad,
wherein it has been stated that the case diary and the Final Report
relating to the aforesaid case are being traced, so that, on the basis of the
endorsement of the competent officer recorded on the case diary, the
name and present posting of the officer who approved the Final Report
may be ascertained.

85
WRIC No. - 21821 of 2025
10. That it is further stated that, through the office letter dated
12.09.2026, correspondence was made with the Commissioner of
Police, Commissionerate Ghaziabad, seeking information regarding the
Final Report of the aforesaid case which has been filed before the Court,
and a request has been made that a certified copy thereof be made
available, so that information regarding the then Circle Officer,
Sahibabad, District Ghaziabad, who had forwarded the Final Report
which was subsequently filed before the Court, may be ascertained.
11. In addition to the above facts, it is respectfully informed that the
deponent was relieved from duty on the afternoon of 14.05.2022 and
was on medical leave for 33 days from 15.05.2022. The final report of
the above case was prepared on 21.06.2026 and was filed in the Court
on 24.08.2026, after the deponent was transferred from the Circle
Officer, Sahibabad, District Ghaziabad, on 29.07.2022. It is not clear
from the above facts that the deponent himself forwarded the above final
report for filing in the Court.
12. That it is most respectfully stated that as of the present date, it has
not been possible to ascertain whether the Final Report relating to the
aforesaid case was forwarded by the deponent himself. In order to
ascertain the aforesaid fact it is necessary to examine the signatures
appearing on the Final Report submitted before the Court. Accordingly,
request has been made to the Commissioner of Police, Commissionerate
Ghaziabad for providing certified copy of the Final Report.
13. That the deponent may kindly be granted 3 days further time to
obtain the copy of the Final Report for the verification of the facts stated
in preceding paragraphs. The deponent further undertakes to file a
separate personal affidavit before this Hon’ble Court in compliance with
the order dated 10.09.2026.”
246. In the instant case, it is not disputed that till date no completion
certificate has been obtained by the Promoter, and the Promoter with
impunity has violated the provisions of Section 15A of the Act, 1973 and
Section 4 (5) of the Act, 2010.
247. The object of issuance of completion certificate is to ensure that
construction strictly follows the sanctioned building plan, local zoning

86
WRIC No. - 21821 of 2025
laws and floor space limit. In other words, it confirms that a building is
constructed as per the approved building plan, local rules and standards.
248. The further object of issuance of completion certificate is that it
ensures structural safety. The completion certificate confirms the
building meets required engineering, fire safety and structural integrity
standards. In other words, the completion certificate ensures that
building is compliant with guidelines or structural integrity, fire safety,
electrical fittings, plumbing and other vital systems.
249. Though, the Promoter in his compliance affidavit has stated that
he had already applied for completion certificate, but had neither
received the completion certificate within the time contemplated under
the provision nor any intimation with regard to refusal of completion
certificate had been intimated, therefore, it is deemed that he has
obtained completion certificate. However, the said fact has been denied
by the Development Authority, and the Vice Chairman in his affidavit
dated 14.09.2026 has stated the steps taken by Development Authority to
ensure that Promoter may obtain the completion certificate. Paragraph
no.17 of the affidavit of Vice Chairman is being reproduced herein
below.:-
“17. That at this stage, it would be relevant to point out the Authority, at
various stage, had taken a serious action in order to ensure that the
completion certificate may be obtained. However, despite the actions
taken against the private respondent the completion certificate was not
obtained. The details of the actions taken by the Authority are follows:-
a. On 02.08.2016, the challan was issued against the private
respondent for granting possession without obtaining the completion
certificate.
b. After issuance of challan, a case was registered and show cause
notice was issued to the private respondent, on 02.08.2016 to show
cause as to why the appropriate action may not be taken for
delivering possession without obtaining the completion certificate.
c. Thereafter reminders were also sent on 09.08.2016 and
10.08.2016.

87
WRIC No. - 21821 of 2025
d. The private respondent vide its letter dated 10.08.2016 addressed
to In-charge Enforcement Zone-7, apprised that various NOC's has
been obtained however, due to non issuance of few NOC's such as
Fire etc., the partial completion certificate could not be obtained.
e. The Ghaziabad Development Authority, again on 23.08.2016
communicated the private respondent that the objection raised in
regard to completion certificate has not been cured, the information
of which was already given on 24.09.2015. No application was
given, despite informing private respondent on 04.04.2016 and
30.05.2016. Accordingly, 3 days' time was granted to the private
respondent to apply for completion certificate along-with all the
records.
f. Accordingly, on 27.10.2017 an application for obtaining partial
completion certificate was applied wherein certain objections were
raised on 30.11.2017 which was duly served upon private respondent
on 02.12.2017, receiving of which is available on the said
communication itself.
g. Thereafter, the Apartment Owner Association communicated
various difficulties being faced by the residents, in compliance
thereof, the Ghaziabad Development Authority issued a notice on
19.03.2018 to the private respondent to immediately obtain a
completion certificate.
h. On 11.04.2018, the answering respondent has also lodged an FIR
against the private respondent for transferring possession without
obtaining the completion certificate.
i. Thereafter, on 28.06.2019 a letter was also sent to the private
respondent to complete all ongoing work and immediately obtain
completion certificate. It was also directed by the answering
respondent that after obtaining the completion certificate, the affairs
may be transferred to the Apartment Association.”
250. From the contents of affidavit of Vice Chairman, it is evident that
the statement of Promoter that he has applied for completion certificate
with all necessary documents is incorrect and false. Therefore, the stand

88
WRIC No. - 21821 of 2025
taken by the Promoter that since he had applied for completion
certificate and he did not receive the completion certificate or get any
intimation with regard to rejection of completion certificate within the
time enumerated in the relevant provision, therefore, the completion
certificate is deemed to have been granted to the Promoter is incorrect
and against the record.
251. In the present case, it is admitted on record that the sale deed in
respect of apartment have been executed by the Promoter, and the
apartment owners have been given possession and they are residing in all
the flats except flats which are compounded under the third
compounding. The completion certificate ought to have been obtained by
the Promoter before selling even a single apartment, but the Promoter
did not choose to obtain the completion certificate and has violated the
provisions of Section 15A of the Act, 1973 and Section 4(5) of the Act,
2010 with impunity thereby, putting the life of thousands of residents in
the aforesaid society in danger, and in this misdeed of the Promoter, the
Officers of the Ghaziabad Development Authority are equally involved
inasmuch as despite there being ample evidence on record that Promoter
has not obtained completion certificate, yet Officers of the Development
Authority allowed the apartment owners to stay in the said apartments.
The Officers of the Ghaziabad Development Authority did not take any
concrete steps to ensure strict compliance of Section 15A of the Act,
1973 and Section 4(5) of the Act 2010, rather they in collusion with the
Promoter allowed the second and third compounding of map despite
knowing fully well the fact that Promoter has violated the provisions of
Section 15A of the Act, 1973 and Section 4(5) of the Act 2010 and
transferred the flats and possession to the apartment owners without
obtaining the completion certificate which is an offence under Sections
25 & 26 of the Act, 2010.
252. It will also not be out of place to mention that while sanctioning
the third compounding, it has been mentioned in the noting which we
have reproduced in paragraph no.97, and the fact that Promoter has sold
the common area to 85 persons which is evident from the noting and

89
WRIC No. - 21821 of 2025
details of persons to whom common areas have been sold which we have
reproduced in paragraph no.236 of the judgment, yet the respondent no.2
sanctioned the third compounding.
253. This reflects that the Officers of the Ghaziabad Development
Authority colluded with the Promoter in perpetuating the illegality
committed by the Promoter by violating the provisions of Section 15A of
the Act, 1973 and Section 4(5) of the Act 2010 which is a criminal
offence thereby, putting the life of thousands of residents in the aforesaid
Society in danger.
254. The aforesaid fact would show that no serious and sincere effort
has been made by the Development Authority for taking any action
against the Promoter for violating the provisions of Section 15A of the
Act, 1973 and Section 4 (5) of the Act, 2010 inasmuch as from the
averments contained in para 17, extracted above, of the affidavit of Vice-
Chairman dated 14.09.2026, it is evident that after 28.06.2019, no step
has been taken by the Development Authority in respect of failure of the
Promoter to obtain completion certificate.
255. It is only when this Court took serious note of the matter and
sought personal appearance of Vice Chairman, some committee has been
constituted by the Vice Chairman with a direction to submit its report
within one month.
256. The original record reveals that the ‘NOC’ from various
departments namely, Fire, etc. have not been obtained by the Promoter
for obtaining the completion certificate.
257. In such view of the fact, it is established on record that Promoter
has violated the mandate of Section 4(5) of the Act, 2010 and Section
15A of the Act, 1973 with impunity in transferring the flats to the
purchasers without obtaining completion certificate with an ulterior
motive to fetch maximum money from the sale of apartments by
compromising life and safety of thousands of persons living in the
Society.

90
WRIC No. - 21821 of 2025
258. We find the conduct of the Promoter in transferring and delivering
the possession of the apartments without completion certificate is
reprehensible and calls for strict action against him for violating the
provisions of Section 15A of the Act, 1973 and Section 4(5) of the Act,
2010.
259. The facts delineated above also establishes that the Development
Authority has been in collusion with the respondent no.3-Promoter in
committing the aforesaid illegalities with impunity by the Promoter
inasmuch as despite the fact that Development Authority did know about
the violation committed by the Promoter, allowed him to transfer the
apartments and deliver the possession to the apartment owners.
260. The illegalities did not stop here. The Development Authority
knowing fully well, the fact that the Promoter has violated the provisions
of Section 15A of the Act, 1973 and provisions of Section 4(5) of the
Act, 2010 proceeded to grant third compounding and allowed him to
construct two additional towers i.e. Tower no. 27 and Tower no.28 and
add two floors in Tower nos.16, 17, 18 and 19, despite the fact that
apartments had already been constructed up to eight floors in the
aforesaid four towers, which are occupied by the families of purchasers
of such apartments.
261. The collusion between the Development Authority and the
Promoter is also manifest from the fact that the Promoter sold the flats in
the aforesaid four towers i.e. Tower nos.16, 17, 18 & 19 without
obtaining completion certificate and delivered the possession thereof
which he could not do, as the Promoter did not submit any application
for issuance of completion certificate in respect to aforesaid towers,
thereby compromising with the security and safety of the residents of
said towers. The Development Authority permitted the Promoter to
construct additional two floors in Tower nos.16, 17, 18 & 19 which
could not have been compounded, if the Development Authority had
enforced the statutory provisions as detailed above and had taken action
against the Promoter for violating Section 15A of the Act, 1973 and

91
WRIC No. - 21821 of 2025
Section 4(5) of the Act, 2010, harassment of the apartment owners by the
Promoter could have been avoided.
262. A contention has also been advanced that apartment owners are
also equally responsible for violation of Section 15A of the Act, 1973
and Section 4(5) of the Act, 2010.
263. It is needless to say that the Promoter holds a dominant financial
position, whereas apartment owners have purchased their unit after
securing their own financing. To manage the funds, many a times the
finance is obtained from the Finance Company or Financial Institutions
or Banks which lends them money on interest which is to be returned by
them in Equal Monthly Installments (EMI).
264. In the instant case, the project had started in the year 2005 and
more than 20 years have passed since, but the project has not been
completed. The Promoter has chosen not to obtain the completion
certificate despite the fact that under Section 15A of the Act, 1973 and
Section 4(5) of the Act, 2010, the responsibility to obtain completion
certificate is of Promoter.
265. In such a pitiable situation, we cannot expect the apartment
owners who have invested their hard earned money and on many
occasions have managed the funds from Finance Company, Financial
Institutions or Banks with a liability to pay EMIs on getting the loan
sanctioned which begins immediately after loan amount is paid to the
Promoter. In such situation, the apartment owner cannot afford to wait
till the time the Promoter obtains the completion certificate. Because of
this compulsion and constraints, the apartment owners have no option
but to occupy the apartments to ease out their financial burden. The
hardship faced by the apartment owners does not give a licence to the
Promoter to exploit their financial incapacity and helplessness to his
advantage and violate the mandatory requirement of obtaining a
completion certificate, as required under Section 15A of the Act, 1973
and Section 4(5) of the Act, 2010. Therefore, we do not find substance in
the argument of learned counsel for the respondents that apartment

92
WRIC No. - 21821 of 2025
owners are also responsible for violation of Section 15A of the Act, 1973
and Section 4(5) of the Act, 2010.
266. So far as the first and second compounding are concerned, though
we have recorded a finding that there was illegality in approving the first
and second compounding for the reason that in the absence of any
original sanction map, there cannot be any compounding inasmuch as
compounding of offence is contemplated where permissible deviation
has been made from the sanctioned map. However, since the third party
interest have been created and petitioners have not assailed the first and
second compounding map, therefore, in the peculiar facts of this case,
we do not propose to pass any adverse order in respect of apartments
constructed during the first and second compounding.
267. So far as third compounding is concerned, it has come on record
that apartments constructed under third compounding have not yet been
sold nor any third party interests has been created, which fact is also
evident from the Commission’s Report dated 25.09.2026, appointed by
this Court vide its order dated 16.09.2026.
268. We have also held that despite the fact that eight Khasras i.e.
Khasra nos. 1034, 1035, 1051, 1054, 1058, 1060, 1061 & 1063 are
owned by Indian Air Force, but the area comprised in the aforesaid
Kharas which is 4560 Square Meter had been included for the purpose of
calculating FAR was patently illegal and erroneous as the Promoter did
not have the title over the aforesaid eight Khasras. Therefore, the
calculation of FAR by including the area of 4560 Square Meter which is
the area of aforesaid eight Khasras is wrong. Therefore, for this reason
also, the order of third compounding map has been passed illegally.
269. We have already on the basis of many grounds urged before us
held the third compounding dated 18.12.2024 illegal. Therefore, we hold
the third compounding dated 18.12.2024 cannot be sustained and is,
accordingly, set aside. Consequently, we direct the respondent no.2 to
th th
demolish the 9 and 10 floor of Tower nos. 16, 17, 18 & 19 and also
entire Tower nos.27 & 28 within a period of two months from the date of

93
WRIC No. - 21821 of 2025
the judgement. We also permit the respondent no.2 to recover the
expenses incurred in demolition from the Promoter as arrears of land
revenue. We further direct the District Administration as well as Police
Authorities to provide adequate assistance and security to the Officers of
the Development Authority at the time of carrying out demolition in
compliance of this order.
270. In the instant case, we have held that the concerned Inspector
Surendera Singh has not conducted the investigation properly and fairly,
and thus, has failed to discharge his duty properly. In such view of the
fact, we suspend the Inspector Surendera Singh and direct the competent
authority to hold an inquiry against him for dereliction of duty.
271. We have already extracted the contents of affidavit of
Superintendent of Police. It reflects from the affidavit of Superintendent
of Police that he evaded disclosing the name of the Officer who has
approved the Final Report. We are surprised to see such an affidavit.
However, we direct the Commissioner of Police, Ghaziabad to find out
the concerned Officer who has approved the Final Report in Case Crime
No. 0749 of 2018, and further direct the State Government to institute an
inquiry against such Officer for dereliction of duty.
272. In the instant case, for the reasons given above, we have held that
the third compounding could not have been done, and further despite the
fact that authority knew that the Promoter has violated with impunity the
provisions of Section 15A of the Act, 1973 and Section 4(5) of the Act,
2010 and despite having knowledge about said fact, the Vice Chairman
has sanctioned the third compounding by order dated 18.12.2024.
Therefore, we are of the view that this is also a case of dereliction of
duty by the Vice Chairman of Ghaziabad Development Authority who
has sanctioned the third compounding order dated 18.12.2024.
Accordingly, we direct the State Government to institute a disciplinary
inquiry against the Vice Chairman of Ghaziabad Development Authority
who has issued/approved third compounding map dated 18.12.2024
within a period of one month from the date of this judgement and order.

94
WRIC No. - 21821 of 2025
273. For the reasons delineated above, we find that it is a case where
poor apartment owners have been harassed by the Promoter in
connivance with the Development Authority. Therefore, it is a fit case
for imposition of cost. Accordingly, we quantify the cost of Rs.25 lacs
upon the respondent no.3, which shall be deposited by him in the
accounts of Society namely, Gulmohar Greens Residents Welfare
Association (GGRWA) within a period of one month from the date of
this judgement and order.
274. We have recorded that Promoter has sold the common areas to
various persons, and respondent no.2 has identified 85 such persons as
is evident from the noting of respondent no.2 which we have reproduced
in paragraph no.238, therefore, we further direct the respondent no.2-
Vice Chairman, Ghaziabad Development Authority to constitute a three
Members Committee Headed by him, which shall after giving due notice
and opportunity of hearing to the aforesaid 85 persons identify the
common areas which have been sold to them, and if, any construction
has been raised by them, they shall demolish the same, and thereafter,
hand over such common area to the society.
275. We further direct the respondent no.3 i.e. Promoter to return the
sale price of the common areas sold by him to the aforesaid 85 persons
and alongwith the cost of construction to be determined and quantified
by the three Members Committee alongwith 10% interest from the date
the apartment owners have paid the price for such area to the Promoter.
The Committee constituted in paragraph no.274 of the judgement shall
complete the aforesaid exercise within a period of six months from the
date of this judgement.
276. It is a clear case where the Promoter has misrepresented the
correct facts and played fraud upon the apartment owners by selling
common areas, and thus, has committed an offence. Accordingly, we
direct the concerned Police Station to register FIR against the Promoter
for committing the offence of fraud, misrepresentation and violating the
provisions of the Act, 2010 with impunity within two weeks from the

95
WRIC No. - 21821 of 2025
date of the judgement. The investigation in the aforesaid offences shall
be done by an Officer not below the rank of Additional Commissioner
of Police, Ghaziabad.
277. We have held above that in the instant case, the Officers of the
Ghaziabad Development Authority are also in collusion with the
Promoter, and because of their slipshod approach, the petitioners and
residents of the Society had to suffer a lot and had to enter into the
litigation by incurring substantial expenses, therefore, in such view of
the fact, we are of the view that respondent no.2 be directed to pay a cost
of Rs.50,000/- to each petitioner in Writ-C No.21821 of 2025 within a
period of two months from the date of pronouncement of this judgement.
278. For the reasons delineated above, both the writ petitions are,
hereby, allowed.
279. The Office is directed to return the original record of Ghaziabad
Development Authority to Sri Tejasvi Misra, Advocate forthwith after
obtaining receiving from him.
(Sudhanshu Chauhan,J.) (Saral Srivastava,J.)
October 27, 2026
Sattyarth/NS
Digitally signed by :-
NITIN KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad