India Today



The sanction given for the second revised plan (2009) was in clear breach of the building regulation­s, since it violated the minimum distance to be maintained between buildings (16 metres)

Even when this issue was highlighte­d by the chief fire officer, it received no response from NOIDA officials and led to no investigat­ion. This violated fire safety norms, which require a mandated amount of space for fire tenders to operate

The plan sanctioned by NOIDA was contrary to: (a) the building regulation­s; (b) the mandatory distance between building blocks; and (c) the movement space required, as a result of which the rights of the apartment owners and the safety of their apartment blocks have been seriously affected

— SUPREME COURT in its Aug. 2021 order

Constructi­on of the two skyscraper­s appears to have begun before permission­s were granted; the work began in July 2009, five months before the second revised plan was passed. Second, the foundation­s constructe­d were for 40-storey buildings (for which permisson was granted only in 2012), not for the 24 storeys allowed in 2009

The plan revisions to develop the skyscraper­s obliterate­d a garden that was supposed to sit adjacent to an existing tower; permission was not sought from the RWA to make this change. This violated the UP Ownership of Flats Act and UP Apartments Act

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from India