Allahabad HC Orders Demolition Of Two Towers And 9th–10th Floors In Ghaziabad Society, Bars Compounding Identical Repeat Violations

The promoter obtained approval in 2006 for a group-housing project comprising 34 towers and 904 dwelling units.

The plan was cancelled in 2010 following a title dispute involving land claimed by the Indian Air Force.

The Authority subsequently approved first and second compoundings in 2011 and 2015, and a third compounding on 18 December 2024.

The third compounding regularised additional floors in Towers 16–19 and two additional towers, 27 and 28.

Individual apartment owners challenged the third compounding, alleging, among other matters, that changes were made without their consent, Air Force land had been included in calculating FAR, and the promoter had sold common areas and transferred possession without obtaining a completion certificate.

The Residents Welfare Association’s connected petition also raised concerns about the common areas.

Section 32 of the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 permits compounding of an offence, but compounding does not itself legalise unauthorised construction or dispense with the statutory procedure for changing an approved plan.

Regulation 13 of the Ghaziabad Development Authority Area Building Regulations, 2002, and Regulations 2.1.7 and 3.1.7 of the Building Bye-laws require prior approval for proposed additions or external alterations to a sanctioned plan; Regulation 15 does not authorise major changes under the guise of rectifying minor violations.

Regulation 2.2 of the Compounding Bye-laws, 2009 bars repetition of a compounded offence, while Regulation 3.2.10 does not permit the additional floors at issue to be compounded.

Sections 4(1)(c) and (d) and 5(3)(a) of the U.P. Apartment Act, 2010 require disclosure of approved plans and common areas and protect the permanent undivided interest of apartment owners, which cannot be altered without the required written consent and competent-authority approval; Designarch Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. Vice Chairman, GDA and Supertech Ltd. v. Emerald Court Owner Resident Welfare Association support those protections.

Section 4(5) of the 2010 Act and Section 15A of the 1973 Act require a completion certificate before transfer or occupation, subject to the statutory deemed-certificate provisions.

Under Section 5(4) of the 2010 Act, common areas and facilities cannot be sold separately; Tula Ram v. Kanpur Development Authority confirms that compounding does not regularise construction prohibited by law.

The owners had standing because the challenged changes potentially affected their individual statutory rights in common areas and undivided land interests.

The Court found that the original 2006 plan had been cancelled and that the record did not establish that the cancellation had been set aside; nevertheless, successive compoundings authorised substantial changes, including additional floors and towers, without proof of the prior approvals required by the Regulations.

The third compounding also relied on a plot area that included 4,560 square metres of land acquired and possessed by the Indian Air Force, making the FAR calculation erroneous.

The additional floors contravened Regulation 3.2.10, while the new towers altered the layout without prior permission.

The changes also implicated apartment owners’ protected interests in the disclosed layout and common areas, notwithstanding the promoter’s assertion that the overall FAR remained within permissible limits.

The promoter had transferred apartments without obtaining a completion certificate, and the record showed that common areas had been sold; the statutory deemed-certificate argument failed because the Authority’s evidence showed that a complete application had not been made.

The Court set aside the third compounding order dated 18 December 2024 and directed demolition, within two months, of the ninth and tenth floors of Towers 16–19 and the entirety of Towers 27 and 28, with demolition costs recoverable from the promoter as arrears of land revenue.

It directed a committee to identify common areas sold to 85 persons, secure removal of any construction on those areas, and restore them to the Association; the promoter must refund the purchasers’ sale price and pay the determined construction cost with 10% interest.

The Court also directed registration of an FIR against the promoter and investigation by an officer not below the rank of Additional Commissioner of Police.

The Court also directed inquiries concerning the investigating officer and the approving Vice-Chairman.

The Court imposed costs of ₹25 lakh on the promoter for the Association and ₹50,000 for each petitioner in Writ-C No. 21821 of 2025.

It made no adverse order concerning the first and second compoundings, given the third-party interests created and the absence of a challenge to those orders.