The Delhi High Court on Monday castigated the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) for its shoddy construction of the Signature View Apartments at Mukherjee Nagar in New Delhi [Vishwajeeth Singh and ors v. Subhashish Panda and ors]..The Court also cleared the decks for the demolition of these apartments and issued directions to ensure that residents are paid interim rent promptly while they remain in alternative accommodation until the flats are reconstructed. Justice Mini Pushkarna found that DDA's conduct reflected apathy and gross negligence, resulting the construction of apartment blocks that were structurally flawed from the get go and incapable of being repaired. "Such delinquency and gross negligence by the DDA is unpardonable, as the same has put lives of hundreds of residents therein, to great risk and danger," the Court observed. The DDA violated the residents' right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution with its callousness and dereliction, the judge added."Ordinary citizens have been put in a perilous situation, on account of substandard and inferior construction of residential towers by DDA," she said. .Signature View Apartments was part of a multi-storied housing scheme launched by the DDA in 2010. It comprised 336 flats.The apartments showed signs of deterioration a short while after the residents began occupying these flats. "By 2013-2014, the exterior plasters/grit wash of many buildings had fallen, leaving the multi-storey buildings in bare and ugly conditions. Even the interior ceilings of roof of flats started falling in the year 2012," the Court observed. .While repair works were undertaken by the DDA over the years, the High Court noted that these were only cosmetic and failed to address deep structure deficiencies.After several complaints by residents and multiple inspections, several reports emerged to indicate that the flats were beyond repair and would require demolition and reconstruction.In December 2023, the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) declared the building complex to be 'dangerous.' Meanwhile, the DDA met the flat's residents to chart out a demolition and rehabilitation plan, which was finalised in June 2023..Most of the residents were agreeable to demolishing the apartments and rebuilding it. However, they objected to the DDA's proposal to pay them interim rent only after all occupants vacate the flat complex. While around 70 per cent of the residents had vacated their flats, some residents remained. The DDA said that it would only pay the interim rent after all occupants vacate the premises since it would not be possible to demolish the structure until it is completely vacant. Meanwhile, some residents opposed the plan to demolish the structure, stating that it would be sufficient to carry out more repair works. All of these disputes reached the Delhi High Court earlier this year, which delivered a common judgment on December 23. .Highlights of the Court verdict1. MCD, DDA proposal to demolish the apartment complex upheldThe Court said that it would not interfere with the demolition proposal, particularly since the decision was taken after multiple inspections and expert committee reports. "Considering the various reports as aforesaid, it is apparent that the buildings in question are structurally unsafe ... Ordinarily, the Court would not interfere in policy matters," it said. 2. DDA's proposal to build additional 168 flats on common areas set asideIn the June 2023 rehabilitation and rebuilding plan, the DDA had also proposed that it would build 168 more flats in areas that were earlier designated as common areas. The flat owners objected to this proposal. The Court sided with the flat owners, observing that these common areas also belong to them and that the DDA no longer held rights to such common areas after having transferred the flats to its owners. "While the DDA has the authority to carry out the demolition of the flats in question, being in dangerous condition, the DDA cannot construct extra flats ... This Court cannot be oblivious to the needs of the petitioners for living with dignity and with adequate open spaces," the Court held. 3. Interim rent to be paid as soon as a resident vacates flatThe Court made it clear that the DDA cannot delay the payment of interim rent to flat owners who vacated the flat premises, merely because there were others still residing in the complex. "Considering the precarious condition of the structures, the occupants of the flats cannot be expected to wait till each occupant vacates the flats. It is far-fetched to expect that all the occupants will vacate the flats at one go," the Court said. The Court also accepted the DDA's proposal to pay ₹50,000 and ₹38,000 per month as interim rent for High Income Group (HIG) and Middle Income Group (MIG) flat owners respectively. "The residents of Signature View Apartments are entitled to payment of facilitation amount/rent, till they are handed over possession of reconstructed flats," the Court added. The Court, however, also said that a 10 per cent increment in rent payment must be made each year, since it may take some time to rebuild the apartment complex. "Residents of the Signature View Apartments, shall be entitled to enhancement at the rate 10% per annum, at the end of each year, till the possession of the reconstructed flat is handed over to them," it ordered. .Counsel who appeared for various petitioners include Senior Advocate Maninder Acharya and advocates Shreya Garg, Sanjeev Kumar Singh, Suman Gupta, Kumar Rajesh Singh, Sachin Jain, Ajay Kumar Agarwal, Pankaj Kumar, Sandeep Kumar Singh, Shubendu Saxena and Anuvrat.The DDA was represented by Senior Advocate Deepika V Marwaha, standing counsel Sanjay Katyal and advocates Nakul Ahuja, Tanishq Sharma and Akshay Pratap Singh.Central Government Standing Counsel Anurag Ahluwalia, Bhagvan Swarup Shukla, Pratima N Lakra and advocates Hridyanshi Sharma, Sarvan Kumar, Yashika Garg, Pinky Pawar and Chandan Prajapati appeared for the Union government. Standing counsel Puja Kalra and advocate Virendra Singh represented the MCD. Advocates Udit Malik and Vishal Chanda appeared for the Delhi government. Advocates Sachin Jain and Ajay Kumar Agarwal appeared for another respondent. .[Read Judgment]
The Delhi High Court on Monday castigated the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) for its shoddy construction of the Signature View Apartments at Mukherjee Nagar in New Delhi [Vishwajeeth Singh and ors v. Subhashish Panda and ors]..The Court also cleared the decks for the demolition of these apartments and issued directions to ensure that residents are paid interim rent promptly while they remain in alternative accommodation until the flats are reconstructed. Justice Mini Pushkarna found that DDA's conduct reflected apathy and gross negligence, resulting the construction of apartment blocks that were structurally flawed from the get go and incapable of being repaired. "Such delinquency and gross negligence by the DDA is unpardonable, as the same has put lives of hundreds of residents therein, to great risk and danger," the Court observed. The DDA violated the residents' right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution with its callousness and dereliction, the judge added."Ordinary citizens have been put in a perilous situation, on account of substandard and inferior construction of residential towers by DDA," she said. .Signature View Apartments was part of a multi-storied housing scheme launched by the DDA in 2010. It comprised 336 flats.The apartments showed signs of deterioration a short while after the residents began occupying these flats. "By 2013-2014, the exterior plasters/grit wash of many buildings had fallen, leaving the multi-storey buildings in bare and ugly conditions. Even the interior ceilings of roof of flats started falling in the year 2012," the Court observed. .While repair works were undertaken by the DDA over the years, the High Court noted that these were only cosmetic and failed to address deep structure deficiencies.After several complaints by residents and multiple inspections, several reports emerged to indicate that the flats were beyond repair and would require demolition and reconstruction.In December 2023, the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) declared the building complex to be 'dangerous.' Meanwhile, the DDA met the flat's residents to chart out a demolition and rehabilitation plan, which was finalised in June 2023..Most of the residents were agreeable to demolishing the apartments and rebuilding it. However, they objected to the DDA's proposal to pay them interim rent only after all occupants vacate the flat complex. While around 70 per cent of the residents had vacated their flats, some residents remained. The DDA said that it would only pay the interim rent after all occupants vacate the premises since it would not be possible to demolish the structure until it is completely vacant. Meanwhile, some residents opposed the plan to demolish the structure, stating that it would be sufficient to carry out more repair works. All of these disputes reached the Delhi High Court earlier this year, which delivered a common judgment on December 23. .Highlights of the Court verdict1. MCD, DDA proposal to demolish the apartment complex upheldThe Court said that it would not interfere with the demolition proposal, particularly since the decision was taken after multiple inspections and expert committee reports. "Considering the various reports as aforesaid, it is apparent that the buildings in question are structurally unsafe ... Ordinarily, the Court would not interfere in policy matters," it said. 2. DDA's proposal to build additional 168 flats on common areas set asideIn the June 2023 rehabilitation and rebuilding plan, the DDA had also proposed that it would build 168 more flats in areas that were earlier designated as common areas. The flat owners objected to this proposal. The Court sided with the flat owners, observing that these common areas also belong to them and that the DDA no longer held rights to such common areas after having transferred the flats to its owners. "While the DDA has the authority to carry out the demolition of the flats in question, being in dangerous condition, the DDA cannot construct extra flats ... This Court cannot be oblivious to the needs of the petitioners for living with dignity and with adequate open spaces," the Court held. 3. Interim rent to be paid as soon as a resident vacates flatThe Court made it clear that the DDA cannot delay the payment of interim rent to flat owners who vacated the flat premises, merely because there were others still residing in the complex. "Considering the precarious condition of the structures, the occupants of the flats cannot be expected to wait till each occupant vacates the flats. It is far-fetched to expect that all the occupants will vacate the flats at one go," the Court said. The Court also accepted the DDA's proposal to pay ₹50,000 and ₹38,000 per month as interim rent for High Income Group (HIG) and Middle Income Group (MIG) flat owners respectively. "The residents of Signature View Apartments are entitled to payment of facilitation amount/rent, till they are handed over possession of reconstructed flats," the Court added. The Court, however, also said that a 10 per cent increment in rent payment must be made each year, since it may take some time to rebuild the apartment complex. "Residents of the Signature View Apartments, shall be entitled to enhancement at the rate 10% per annum, at the end of each year, till the possession of the reconstructed flat is handed over to them," it ordered. .Counsel who appeared for various petitioners include Senior Advocate Maninder Acharya and advocates Shreya Garg, Sanjeev Kumar Singh, Suman Gupta, Kumar Rajesh Singh, Sachin Jain, Ajay Kumar Agarwal, Pankaj Kumar, Sandeep Kumar Singh, Shubendu Saxena and Anuvrat.The DDA was represented by Senior Advocate Deepika V Marwaha, standing counsel Sanjay Katyal and advocates Nakul Ahuja, Tanishq Sharma and Akshay Pratap Singh.Central Government Standing Counsel Anurag Ahluwalia, Bhagvan Swarup Shukla, Pratima N Lakra and advocates Hridyanshi Sharma, Sarvan Kumar, Yashika Garg, Pinky Pawar and Chandan Prajapati appeared for the Union government. Standing counsel Puja Kalra and advocate Virendra Singh represented the MCD. Advocates Udit Malik and Vishal Chanda appeared for the Delhi government. Advocates Sachin Jain and Ajay Kumar Agarwal appeared for another respondent. .[Read Judgment]
