CASE STUDY-1: MOOT PROBLEM CASE STUDY-2: DEMOLITION OF ILLEGAL CONSTRUCTION- NOIDA TWIN TOWER CASE

1. National Institute of Construction Management and Research
(NICMAR), Pune
Executive Development Programme in Project Management (EDP-PM)
Submitted to: Dr. Yuvraj Patil
Submitted by: Jaspreet Singh
Registration No: 223-05-53-51472-2241
Date of Submission: 26/09/2023
Legal Aspects of Project Management
Assignment 1: Case Study
Assignment 2: Demolition of Illegal Construction- Noida Twin Tower Case

2. 1 | P a g e
CONTENTS
Case Study-1: Moot Problem ................................................................................................................. 2
Issues:................................................................................................................................................. 2
Answers to Case Study-1:................................................................................................................... 3
Case study-2: Demolition of Illegal Construction- Noida Twin Tower Case........................................... 7
Answer the following questions.......................................................................................................... 9
Applicable Laws................................................................................................................................. 9
Answers to Case Study 2: ................................................................................................................. 10

3. 2 | P a g e
CASE STUDY-1: MOOT PROBLEM
A construction worker Sri. Shivaji A. Jadhav was working as a workman and was employed by
the PWD to work on the Construction of road in Pune city.
Sri. Shivaji A. Jadhav was attacked by some strangers in a construction site. On 01.06.2023,
around 1.15 p.m., Sri. Shivaji A. Jadhav, who was working and taking shelter after meals near
the construction site.
At that point of time, two strangers, later identified as Suresha and Nagaraja, sought to extract
money from Sri. Shivaji A. Jadhav attacked him. When Sri. Shivaji A. Jadhav resisted, and the
strangers attacked him with cement hollow blocks and Sri. Shivaji A. Jadhav sustained multiple
injuries over his body. He later succumbed to the injury.
Smt. Savithri, aged about 40 years wife of late Sri. Shivaji A. Jadhav and Shruthi aged about
21 years daughter of the late Sri. Shivaji A. Jadhav, a resident of Bhandara, filed a claim petition
seeking Rs.20,00,000/- as compensation from the PWD before the Commissioner for
Workmen's Compensation, under the provisions of the Code on Social Security 2020.
Sri. Shivaji A. Jadhav was working for about four months prior to the incident and was paid
Rs.600/- per day. It was contended before the commissioner that the death of Shivaji was caused
during the course of employment and therefore the PWD is liable to pay the compensation.
ISSUES:
1. Whether such an incident could be termed as 'accident' and brought under the purview
of the Code on Social Security 2020?
2. If yes, whether this accident is caused during the course of employment?
3. Whether the PWD could be held liable to pay compensation for the death of the
worker?
4. How much compensation Legal heirs of Sri Shivaji Jadhav are entitled to?

4. 3 | P a g e
ANSWERS TO CASE STUDY-1:
This case pertains to a legal situation concerning the unfortunate death of a construction worker at a
construction site, resulting from a combination of factors, and highlights the importance of required
Workmen's compensation. The following are the key legal issues and questions that need to be
addressed:
1. Definition of Accident under the Code of Social Security 2020:
The first issue to consider is whether the incident involved the attack on Sri. Shivaji A. Jadhav can
be legally defined as an "accident" under the provisions of the Code on Social Security 2020, and
compensation is typically provided for such work-related accidents as this happens during the course
of work in ROW.
2. Course of Employment:
As it is clearly stated in the case study Mr. Jadhav was working as a workman and was employed
by the PWD for the construction of the road in Pune City, therefore, the accident occurred during
the course of employment, to prove the status attendance records and other evidence to establish
that the incident occurred during the course of his employment are required.
3. Liability of the PWD:
Assuming the incident qualifies as an accident during the course of employment, PWD (Public
Works Department) is therefore liable to pay compensation for the death of the worker. How it may
be influenced by factors such as the presence of third-party Workmen's Compensation insurance.
4. Compensation Amount:
The compensation amount is contingent on multiple factors, the final issue is determining the
amount of compensation that the legal heirs of Sri. Shivaji A. Jadhav is entitled to. This would
involve calculating the loss suffered by the dependents due to his death, including factors like his
income, age of Death, family's financial needs, and other relevant considerations.
Moreover, the Workmen Compensation Act, of 1923 is an act to provide for this payment by certain
classes of employees to their workmen of compensation for injury by accident. In addition a case of
Sh. Tarlok Singh is enclosed herein within the assignment, in which the claim of RS. 13,99,320-/-
was provided by the Company after the death of the Employee. It was calculated as per the Workmen
Compensation Act, of 1923, schedule IV (Page-36).

5. 4 | P a g e

6. 5 | P a g e

7. 6 | P a g e

8. 7 | P a g e
CASE STUDY-2: DEMOLITION OF ILLEGAL CONSTRUCTION- NOIDA TWIN
TOWER CASE
On 17th March 2005, the Noida authority (New Okhla Industrial Development Authority) gave the
land in sector 93A plot no 4 measuring 48,262 sq. meters, of Noida, UP on a lease basis for the
development purpose to Supertech Ltd. It began to work on the Emerald Court project consisting of
3,4, and 5 BHK apartments in the said allotted land. The possession of the land was given on 17th
March 2005.
On 20th June 2005, the Noida authority gave sanction as per NBR 1986 (Noida Building Regulations
and Directions) for the construction of 14 towers, each tower consisting of a ground floor plus nine
floors (G+9). The plan was sanctioned as per the New Okhla Industrial Development Area Building
Regulations and Directions 1986.
On June 2006 Noida Authority executed a supplementary lease in favour of Supertech Ltd. and gave
additional land measuring 6556.51 sq. meters in Sector 93A, plot No 4 (in the same sector). The
possession letter of the new land was given on 23rd June 2006. Now the total leased area for
development purposes has increased to 54,819.51 sq. meters.
On 29th Dec 2006, Noida sanctioned the first revised plan of the original fourteen towers by adding
two additional floors in the existing plan of 9 floors (G+9), now the sanction is for (G+11). In addition
to that new buildings were sanctioned as –
i) Tower 15 (Ground + eleven (11) floors) &
ii) Tower 16 comprising of subordinate wings including one wing of G+11 floors and another wing
of Ground +4.
iii) Shopping Complex (G+1).
Consequently, together Noida authority has sanctioned 16 towers (G+11) each tower of 36.5 meters in
height and one shopping complex of Ground plus one.
The 1st revised plan mentioned the green park opposite Tower 1, where the construction of Tower 16
& Tower 17 was being carried out. The same information was mentioned in the brochure when the
allottees purchased the flat in tower 1 and also mentioned in the completion certificate date 10th April
2008. Thereafter Supertech Ltd. gave possession to various owners.
On 28th Feb 2009, the State of UP issued a notification enhancing the FAR (Floor Area Ratio) to 2.75
for new allottees, which as per the Noida Building Regulation 2006 was only 2. The State of UP
notification further provided for additional purchasable FAR, according to which old allottees could
purchase FAR to a maximum extent of 33% FAR of the existing base FAR for old allottees. It was
made available to the old allottees as well by the notification dated 3rd
July 2009 which was still awaited. Relying on the notification of Noida, Supertech Ltd. planned for the
construction of Tower 16 ‘Apex’ and Tower 17 ‘Ceyane’ in such a way that to adjust the additional
FAR which may be available for buy on some future date. On 28th Feb 2009, replying to the
notification dated 19th Nov 2009, Supertech purchased 33% additional FAR for Rs. Eight crores which

9. 8 | P a g e
became 1.995 which was previously 1.5 FAR. However, Supertech had already started the construction
of Tower 16 named Apex, and Tower 17 named 'Ceyane' before the grant of permission by Noida.
Supertech represented the flat owners of T-16 ‘Apex’ and T-17 ‘Ceyane’, they have purchased two
separate plots of a total of 48000 sq. meters. which got registered in March 2005 and 6500 sq. met.
which was in May 2006 separately. It was also communicated that these two towers T-16 ‘Apex’ and
T-17 ‘Ceyane’ will have a separate entry and exit and consist of a club, swimming pool, and basic
infrastructure and there will be a separate boundary wall separating the existing 15 towers and T-16
‘Apex’ & T-17 ‘Ceyane’.
Supertech informed the investors (flat owners) that Noida sanctioned the revised plan for replacing the
existing Tower 16 (Ground plus11 floor) and the shopping complex (Ground plus one), with new twin
towers Tower16 named ‘Apex’ and Tower17 named ‘Ceyane’, each consist of Ground plus 24 floors
and 73 meters, height.
On 11th Sept 2009, the (CFO) Chief Fire Officer of GB Nagar (Gautam Budh Nagar) gave the
provisional fire NOC for T-16 ‘Apex’ and T-17 ‘Ceyane’ with the condition to comply with the
National Building Code, 2005.
On 16th Sept 2009, another six towers got a completion certificate which also showed the green area
in front of Tower 1, where now Tower 16‘Apex’ and Tower 17 ‘Ceyane’ construction going on.
On 26th Nov 2009, the Noida authority permitted the revised plan for ‘Emrald court’ under NBR
(Noida Building Rules) 2006. In this plan earlier Tower 16 (Ground plus 11) was replaced with Tower
16 ‘Apex’ and the shopping complex (Ground plus1) was replaced with Tower 17 ‘Ceyane’. Both
towers consist of G+24 floors and 73 meters in height each.
On 20th Feb 2010, the UP State government issued a notification enabling old allottees to purchase
FAR of up to 2.75, and as a consequence, the limit of maximum purchasable FAR of 33% of existing
base FAR was removed. The notification also amended the NBR 2006. On 18th Aug 2011, CFO
granted a temporary NOC in respect of T 16 and T 17, for a height of 121.5mtrs with proposed G+38
floors with a condition that, a permanent NOC shall be granted after assessment of the installation of
the fire safety equipment after construction of the building.
On 25th Oct 2011, according to the notification date of 20th Feb 2010, Supertech Ltd. purchased an
additional FAR at Rs 15 crores, to enhance the available FAR from 1.995 to 2.75 which is 1,50,753.652
sq. meters. On the same day, Noida issued a letter to Supertech Ltd. about the purchase of FAR,
imposing several requirements, including compliance with the UP Apartment Act 2020.
On 2nd March 2012, Noida Authority sanctioned the 3rd revised plan for Emerald Court and permitted
the T16 & T17 towers to be raised from 24 floors to 40 floors i.e. G+40, resulting in 121 meters. height.
The third revised plan also contained compliance with the UP Apartment Act 2010, along with similar
requirements of a second revised plan.
Residents requested by RTI for sanction plan of plot 4 of sector 93A to Noida Authority. Upon
receiving the application, the Noida authority asked Supertech Ltd to comply with the revised sanction
plan terms and conditions and make a copy of the sanction plan and map available at a construction
site. The Supertech refused to release the sanctioned plan and map.

10. 9 | P a g e
On 26 June 2012, Noida issued a completion certificate to the Supertech for Tower-15 (G+11).
Residents Welfare Association addressed Noida complaining of violation and misrepresentation made
to the owners by Supertech Ltd. and requested for cancellation of the layout plan of two towers T-16
and T-17.
On 10 December 2012, RWA filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution before the High
Court of Allahabad.
ANSWER THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS
1. Whether writ petition is within limitation? Construction of T-16 and T-17 was approved on 26
November 2009, but the writ petition had been filed after three years in December 2012.
2. Whether there is a violation of the NBR 2010 for the distance between two buildings and the
UP Apartments Act 2010 is applied for the consent of the residents before making the change
of use?
3. Whether there is a violation of fire safety norms?
4. Whether Noida Authority can be prosecuted under the UPUD Act 1973 for, giving sanctions
for the layout map in violation of the mandatory requirement for space to be maintained
between building blocks and clear space?
5. Whether aforesaid towers ordered to be demolished? If not, then what would be the alternative
remedy?
APPLICABLE LAWS
1. Indian Limitation Act 1963. (India).
2. National Building Code 2005. (India).
3. Noida Building Rules 2006. (Noida India).
4. Noida Building Rules 2010. (Noida India).
5. Uttar Pradesh Apartments Act 2010. (Uttar Pradesh India).
6. Uttar Pradesh Apartments Act 2020. (Uttar Pradesh India).
7. Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act 1973. (Uttar Pradesh India).

11. 10 | P a g e
ANSWERS TO CASE STUDY 2:
1. Whether the writ petition is within limitation?
The Indian Limitation Act, of 1963 prescribes the time limits for filing various types of lawsuits.
The writ petition looks to have been submitted after the deadline. The writ suit was submitted in
December 2012, more than three years after the 26th of November 2009, when construction of T-
16 and T-17 was allowed. Therefore, it seems to be barred by limitation, but in the past, there have
been some civil suits in which it was allowed
2. Whether there is a violation of the NBR 2010 for the distance between two buildings and the
UP Apartments Act 2010 is applied for the consent of the residents before making the change
of use?
It is clear that Supertech Limited's construction of Tower 16 and Tower 17 was found to be in
violation of various building regulations, including the Noida Building Regulations (NBR) 2006,
NBR 2010, and the National Building Code, 2005 (NBC 2005). Here are the key violations
highlighted in the provided information:
• NBR 2006 Violation: According to NBR 2006, the minimum distance between two adjacent
building blocks should not be less than half the height of the tallest building. In this case, the height
of Tower 16 and Tower 17 was 73 meters, while the height of Tower 1 was 37 meters. Therefore,
the minimum distance between Tower 17 and Tower 1, as per NBR 2006, should have been 36.5
meters. However, the actual distance between these two towers was only 9 meters, indicating a
clear violation of NBR 2006.
• NBR 2010 Violation: NBR 2010 prescribed varying distance requirements between adjacent
building blocks. For buildings with a height above 18 meters, the required spacing was 16 meters.
When the height of Tower 16 and Tower 17 was increased to 121 meters in the third revised plan,
the minimum distance between Tower 1 and Tower 17, as per NBR 2010, should have been 16
meters. However, the actual distance was still only 9 meters, indicating a violation of NBR 2010.
• NBC 2005 Violation: The National Building Code, 2005 (NBC 2005), requires the maintenance
of open spaces for buildings above a certain height. In this case, when calculated according to
NBC 2005, the minimum open space around Tower 17 should have been 20.45 meters. However,
the actual distance between Tower 17 and Tower 1 was only 9 meters, demonstrating a violation
of NBC 2005.
• Fire Safety Compliance: The Chief Fire Officer issued a temporary fire No Objection Certificate
(NOC) with the condition that Supertech should make arrangements for fire safety compliance in
line with NBC 2005. However, since the rear distance requirement under NBC 2005 was not met
(only 9 meters instead of the required 16 meters), the temporary fire NOC was automatically
canceled.
Therefore the Supreme Court of India Comprising Bench: Hon'Ble Dr. Chandrachud,
M.R. Shah, Hon'Ble Ms. Kohli analysis determined that Supertech's construction plans and
execution were not in compliance with the applicable building regulations and codes, leading to
violations related to minimum distances between buildings and fire safety requirements. These
violations were identified based on the specific provisions of NBR 2006, NBR 2010, and NBC
2005. Therefore consent of the residents before making the change of use will be shade to violate
the Law as well.

12. 11 | P a g e
3. Whether Noida Authority can be prosecuted under the UPUD Act 1973 for giving sanctions
for the layout map in violation of the mandatory requirement for space to be maintained
between building blocks and clear space?
The layout map approved by the Noida Authority has been altered in a way that violates the
mandatory requirements for space to be maintained between building blocks and clear space, and
if such alterations are not in compliance with the Uttar Pradesh Urban Development Act (UPUD
Act) 1973 and its associated regulations, there could be grounds for potential legal action against
the Noida Authority.
• Violation of Mandatory Requirements: Altering the layout map in a manner that violates the
mandatory requirements for space between building blocks and clear space constitutes a breach of
the legal obligations outlined in the UPUD Act 1973 and its associated regulations. These
requirements are in place to ensure safety, planned development, and the well-being of residents.
• Non-Compliance with UPUD Act: The UPUD Act 1973 serves as the governing legislation for
urban development and planning in Uttar Pradesh. It establishes rules and standards for land use,
building regulations, and development plans within the state.
• Authority's Responsibility: The Noida Authority, as the relevant governmental agency
responsible for urban development in Noida, is entrusted with the duty of enforcing the provisions
of the UPUD Act and adhering to its regulations.
• Prosecution under UPUD Act: The Noida Authority wilfully allowed or participated in the
alteration of the layout map in violation of mandatory requirements, legal action may be taken
against the authority under the provisions of the UPUD Act 1973.
In summary, there is evidence to suggest that the Noida Authority knowingly allowed
alterations to a layout map that violated mandatory requirements for space between building blocks
and clear space. Legal proceedings against government authorities involve a structured legal
process and should be pursued in accordance with the relevant legal provisions and is going on as
well.
4. Whether the aforesaid towers should be ordered to be demolished? If not, what would be the
alternative remedy?
The decision to demolish the towers would be based on a number of considerations, including the
severity of the infractions, public safety concerns, and the legal remedies available under
applicable laws and regulations. If the infractions are serious and endanger public safety,
demolition may be considered as a last resort. Moreover, to set examples for money pocket that if
something is wrong being constructed it might be demolished or penalized as per the relevant
Laws.
Alternative treatments may include:
a) Assessing fines or penalties on the developer for infringement.
b) Making the developer responsible for bringing the structures into compliance with applicable
requirements.
c) Making amends for any losses or difficulties caused by the infractions.
d) In the future, stricter monitoring and enforcement of building laws will be implemented.
e) Reviewing and revising construction codes to avoid such infractions in the future.