Zero tolerance

Govt should prevent construction of illegal floors and buildings

The Allahabad High Court's order to demolish two residential high-rises in Supertech Emerald Court in Noida exposes the deep rot in real estate and the urgent need to clean it up. The Residents' Welfare Association of Emerald Court had filed a petition arguing that the builder had raised the height of the towers from 24 floors to 40 floors "without maintaining the mandatory distance of 16 metres from the adjoining block", which had made it unsafe and also blocked air and light. Supertech, the builder, argued that all relevant permissions from the Noida authorities were obtained. But that cut no ice with the court. "It has repeatedly come to notice that builders, with officers of development authorities, flout every rule, including building ones," it said. Supertech plans to appeal the decision in a higher court.

This is not the first time that a builder has been accused of unilaterally adding more apartments in a project. The residents of DLF's Belaire in Gurgaon had taken the company to the Competition Commission of India (CCI) for adding floors without their permission. The CCI had accused DLF of misusing its dominant position and imposed a penalty of Rs 600 crore on it. DLF has appealed the verdict. Residents of these apartments had argued that additional apartments stretched the infrastructure of the project and resulted in more people sharing the common facilities. So it is patently unfair to the initial buyers. The infrastructure promised to them cannot be changed midway. The builder, on the other hand, gets away by under-investing in the infrastructure.

Unfortunately, the authorities have encouraged such unfair practices by frequently regularising unauthorised constructions. Most builders overbuild in the hope that the additional space will one day get regularised. This is true of both residential and commercial real estate. The shabby commercial complexes that exist all over Delhi are a standing testimony to this unholy nexus between the authorities and builders. Many builders don't even bother to get a completion certificate. What has made matters worse is that builders pre-sell projects to brokers. Thus, brokers give them money to pay the authorities for the land and, in return, get apartments or offices at a discount. This tempts builders into extra construction in order to make money. "The time has come when everyone should realise that the rule of law is not purchasable," the Allahabad High Court noted in the Supertech judgment. Hopefully, this will end the tendency to believe that a country like India cannot afford to lose "assets" like additional floors, however illegally they may have been built. The court might as well have asked why such cases come to light only through the legal process. What are the administrative departments entrusted with the task of ensuring adherence to rules and laws doing? Such orders will help, but the larger systemic problem remains.

The authorities need to have a policy of zero tolerance towards builders who flout the rules. A country like India does need high-rises. There can be no argument over that. So the authorities need to provide for them in their master plans by allowing a higher floor-area ratio. However, it cannot be allowed to be changed on a case-by-case basis. That will only lead to corruption and discontent. Malpractices such as this one abound in residential real estate. The Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Bill was meant to bring to an end all such unsavoury practices. This was obviously not to the liking of the builders. Therefore, it isn't surprising that the Bill is yet to become law.