Allahabad High Court Finds GDA Colluded With Builder To Regularise Illegal Constructions, Imposes Hefty Costs On Both

The Allahabad High Court has imposed costs of ₹25 lakh on the promoter of the Gulmohar Greens housing society in Ghaziabad and directed the Ghaziabad Development Authority (GDA) to pay ₹50,000 to each of the eleven apartment owners who approached the Court, holding that GDA officials had colluded with the promoter in perpetuating illegalities, including allowing flats to be sold and occupied without a completion certificate.

The Court also directed registration of an FIR against the Promoter for fraud, misrepresentation and statutory violations. It set aside GDA's third compounding approval dated December 18, 2024, and ordered demolition of the ninth and tenth floors of Towers 16, 17, 18 and 19, as well as the entirety of Towers 27 and 28.

Further, the Court directed the State Government to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the GDA Vice Chairman who sanctioned the compounding order and ordered an inquiry against a police inspector over the improper investigation into allegations concerning the sale of common areas.

A Division Bench of Justice Saral Srivastava and Justice Sudhanshu Chauhan observed:

“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.”

The layout for the society at 95, Katori Mill, Mohan Nagar, Sahibabad, Ghaziabad, was sanctioned on May 29, 2006, for 34 towers comprising 904 dwelling units. Officers of the Hindon Air Force Station objected to the promoter's title over several khasra plots. The layout approval was cancelled on July 3, 2010, by which time 720 units had already been constructed.

The Authority subsequently compounded the layout three times—in November 2011, January 2015 and December 2024. The third compounding order regularised the ninth and tenth floors of Towers 16, 17, 18 and 19 and permitted two additional towers.

Eleven apartment owners challenged the third compounding order. Their petition was heard along with a 2015 writ petition filed by the society's Residents' Welfare Association (RWA).

GDA Failed To Verify Title Dispute Over Eight Plots

Under Rule 2(c) of the Uttar Pradesh Apartment (Promotion of Construction, Ownership and Maintenance) Rules, 2011, the Vice Chairman of GDA is the competent authority for the area where the society is situated. The Court noted that the Uttar Pradesh Apartment Act, 2010, seeks to protect the rights and interests of apartment owners.

The petitioners contended that the authority entrusted with enforcing the law had failed to act against the promoter despite the alleged statutory violations.

On the issue of title, the Court found that the Hindon Air Force had repeatedly informed GDA that eight plots belonged to it and that a writ petition concerning those plots had been pending since 1990. Despite these communications, GDA failed to ascertain the nature of the dispute and relied instead on a Tehsildar's report and a khatauni entry to conclude that the promoter's title was clear.

Given the scale of the proposed housing project, the Court held that the Authority ought to have exercised greater caution.

“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.”

Flats Sold Without Completion Certificate

The Court noted that the promoter had not obtained a completion certificate, despite the requirements under Section 15A of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973, and Section 4(5) of the Uttar Pradesh Apartment Act, 2010, before transferring apartments.

The promoter argued that he had applied for the certificate along with the requisite documents and that it should be treated as having been granted by implication. The Court rejected this contention as incorrect and false.

The GDA Vice Chairman's own affidavit referred to a challan, show-cause notices and reminders issued between 2016 and 2019. The original record also showed that no-objection certificates from departments, including the Fire Department, remained outstanding.

The Court observed that, after a letter dated June 28, 2019, the Authority took no further action against the promoter, even as residents continued to occupy the towers. A committee was constituted only after the Court took serious note of the matter and called for the Vice Chairman's personal appearance.

The Bench held:

“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.”

GDA Approved Compounding Despite Encroachment On Common Areas

The Court further noted that GDA sanctioned the third compounding order despite its own records recording encroachment into the setback and common areas. Its records also identified 85 persons to whom the promoter had sold portions of the ground-floor common areas.

Despite being aware of the promoter's violations, the Authority permitted apartments to be transferred and possession to be handed over to buyers.

Court Finds Lapses In Police Investigation, Directs FIR Against Promoter

The Court criticised the police investigation into an FIR registered on April 11, 2018, as Case Crime No. 0749 of 2018 under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, concerning the sale of common areas.

The investigating officer had submitted a final report treating the dispute as civil without inspecting the site or recording the promoter's statement.

“We are shocked to see that the Final Report is submitted without enquiring into the allegations in the FIR.”

Holding that Inspector Surendera Singh had failed to investigate the matter properly and fairly, the Court directed his suspension and an inquiry into the alleged dereliction of duty.

The Bench also criticised the affidavit filed by the Superintendent of Police who had served as the Circle Officer at the relevant time.

“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.”

The Commissioner of Police, Ghaziabad, was directed to identify the officer who approved the final report, while the State Government was directed to inquire into that officer's conduct.

Separately, the Court directed registration of an FIR against the promoter for fraud, misrepresentation and statutory violations. It also directed that the investigation be conducted by an officer not below the rank of Additional Commissioner of Police, Ghaziabad.

Disciplinary Inquiry Against GDA Vice Chairman

The Court held that sanctioning the third compounding order despite knowledge of the promoter's violations amounted to dereliction of duty by the GDA Vice Chairman. It directed the State Government to initiate a disciplinary inquiry against him within one month.

“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.”

₹25 Lakh Costs On Builder; GDA To Pay ₹50,000 To Each Petitioner

On costs, the Court directed the promoter to deposit ₹25 lakh into the account of the Residents' Welfare Association within one month.

The Court also directed GDA to pay ₹50,000 to each petitioner in the 2025 writ petition within two months, observing that the Authority's conduct had forced the residents to incur substantial litigation expenses.

“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”

Setting aside the third compounding order dated December 18, 2024, the Court directed GDA to demolish the ninth and tenth floors of Towers 16, 17, 18 and 19, along with the entirety of Towers 27 and 28, within two months. The Authority was permitted to recover the demolition costs from the promoter as arrears of land revenue.

Both writ petitions were allowed.