technical details of misrepresent ion and fraud at mahagun mascot
TRANSCRIPT
To, Principal Secretary (Sh. Ravindra Singh) Housing and Urban Planning Department Government of Uttar Pradesh Room No. 324, Bapu Bhavan, Secretariat, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh-226001 Copy to:
S.No Particulars Mode 1 Hon’ble Prime Minister of India Fax 01123019545 &
Reg.Post 2 Hon’ble President of India Fax 01123017290 &
Reg.Post 3 Hon’ble Chief Minister of Uttar
Pradesh Fax 05222235733 & Reg.Post
4 Chief Secretary of Uttar Pradesh Fax 05222239283 & Reg.Post
5 Hon’ble Governor of Uttar Pradesh
Fax 05222239488
6 Hon’ble Minister of Urban Development (Govt. of India)
Fax 05222235364 & Reg.Post
Subject: Technical details of fraud committed by Ghaziabad Development
Authority officials in collusion with builder ‘Mahagun India Pvt.
Ltd.’ leading to Public Endangerment in Group Housing Complex
known as ‘Mahagun Mascot’ located in Ghaziabad, U.P
Reference: S.No. Reference No. Date Sender 1. P-2-8794/Lo.Shi.0-2/2011 28.06.2011 U.P Chief Minister’s
office 2. 4187/MS/GI/11 28.06.2011 U.P Chief Secretary’s
office 3. 4796/MS/GI/11 21.07.2011 U.P Chief Secretary’s
Date 7th October 2011
Page 1 of 17
office 4. K-14011/45/2006-UD-II
(Vol.IV) 07.07.2011 Ministry of Urban
Development (Govt. of India)
5. Subject ‘Public endangerment in Group Housing complex ‘Mahagun Mascot’ in Ghaziabad due to faulty construction’
25.08.2011 Mahesh Narayanan
6. Subject ‘An open letter to Mr. Pawan Kumar Jain and Mr. Dhiraj Jain Directors of Mahagun India’ (COPY to Dept. of Urb.Dev Govt of U.P)
26.04.2011 Mahesh Narayanan
7. Subject ‘Public Injury including heavy loss of life likely in ‘Mahagun Mascot’ group housing complex’ (COPY to Dept. of Urb.Dev Govt of U.P)
03.05.2011 Mahesh Narayanan
Annexure
1. 3D-illustration of layout of the group housing project depicting the composition of buildings.
2. 3D-illustration of Close-Up view of the problem area of the group housing complex.
3. Misrepresentation in 2009 approved plan 4. Illustration of cross-sectional area in 2009 plan describing the flaw 5. Misrepresentation in 2011 approved compounding plan 6. Rule 3.4.5 of building bye-law
Respected Sir,
Page 2 of 17
Your office has been informed of the various building bye-law violations in
building structures of group housing complex known as ‘Mahagun Mascot’
located in Township ‘Crossings Republik’, Dundahera, Ghaziabad, U.P via
letters/complaints listed above. The summary of the complaints is that
Ghaziabad Development Authority acting in collusion with the builder
‘Mahagun India Pvt. Ltd.’ approved a shopping complex building which
happens to be root cause of all the building bye-law violations in this group
housing complex. The shopping complex building known as ‘Convenience
Shop and Public Plaza’ has been approved over the mandatory
setbacks/opens-spaces of the high rise residential tower buildings of this
group housing complex (Refer to Annexure 1 & 2). The shopping complex
building, which is approved in gross violation of the building bye-laws, is a
fruit of misrepresentation and fraud. As a result of material
misrepresentation made by the builder in the plan/map submitted by him for
approval together with the connivance of the authority officials the shopping
complex building has been sanctioned and is being raised within the
confines of the group housing complex at a spot where there is absolutely no
scope for any further construction as per the bye-laws. The shopping
complex building, which is being raised over the setbacks of the high rise
residential tower buildings, blocks the mandatory passage-way required for
fire-fighting and rescue apparatus and is a serious threat to the life safety of
as many as 1200 residents of the group housing complex.
In this letter the technical details of the fraud that took place leading to the
approval of the shopping complex building is described. It is important to
note that the residential tower Blocks C1 & D, ‘Community Facility’ and
Page 3 of 17
‘Convenience Shop and Public Plaza’ have been approved as one single
conjoined block in plan sanctioned in 2009 vide 1022/EHA/GH/08-09
(Refer to Annexure-3). This is a ploy used by the builder to garner sanction
of the shopping complex building. Following is a detailed description of all
the misrepresentation and fraud that took place leading to the approval of the
shopping complex building.
1. Misrepresentations in the plan approved vide sanction
no.1022/EHA/GH/08-09
a. ‘Community Facilities’ building is imaginary; It does not exist
‘Community Facilities’ building is only imaginary and was indicated in
the map to trick the authority. ‘Community Facilities’ building was added
to the map so that tower Block C1, Block D, ‘Community Facility’ and
‘Convenience Shop and Public Plaza’ can be treated as one conjoined
block. It is to be noted that ‘Community Facilities’ building is falsely
indicated as an ‘Existing Block’ in the approved plan; It was never ever
constructed. This misrepresentation allowed the application of rule 3.4.5
(IV) (gah) to the conjoined block instead of 3.4.5 (I) whereby the
conjoined block was approved with 12 Meter setback on the ground level
(Refer to Annexure-6). Otherwise had the builder not taken aid of this
misrepresentation the residential tower block C1 and D would have been
treated as individual building blocks each standing 60 meters or more
above ground and the rule 3.4.5 (I) would have to be applied whereby
both towers would have to be provided with a 15 meter wide setback on
ground level. Without this misrepresentation there would have been no
Page 4 of 17
space left for constructing the ‘Convenience Shop and Public Plaza’
building and the same could not have been sanctioned.
b. 12 Meter wide setback indicated in-front of ‘Convenience Shop
and Public Plaza’ building is incorrect
Only 6 (Six) Meters setback exist at site. This misrepresentation was
made so that 12 meter wide setback mandated by rule 3.4.5 (IV) (gah)
could be satisfied. Hence the very basis of approval (12 meter setback) is
false. Had the builder not taken aid of this misrepresentation the
‘Convenience Shop and Public Plaza’ building could not have been
sanctioned.
2. Misrepresentations in the compounding drawing approved on
16.03.2011
a. Width of drive-way in-front of C1 and D is incorrect
A drive-way of 9 meters width is indicated in-front of towers C1 and D
where as only 6 (six) Meters wide drive-way exists at site.
b. 10 Meter wide setback indicated in Compounding drawing is
incorrect
The setback in-front of the ‘Convenience Shop and Public Plaza’
building was later compounded to 10 Meters via the compounding
drawing approved on 16.03.2011. Even this is incorrect as only 6 Meters
Page 5 of 17
exists at site as mentioned above (Refer to Annexure-5). The authority
was informed beforehand of this discrepancy between the map and the
actual site but even then the drawing containing the incorrect dimensions
has been approved. Builder colluded with Babu Singh (Jt. Secretary
GDA) to get the compounding plan approved with this incorrect detail.
3. Incorrect application of building and compounding rules by
authority in sanction no.1022/EHA/GH/08-09
a. The rule of ‘deferred setback’ incorrectly applied
The building bye-law rule 3.4.5 (IV) (gah) cannot be applied to conjoined
cluster consisting of Block C1, Block D, ‘Community Facility’ and
‘Convenience Shop and Public Plaza’. This is so because the
‘Convenience Shop and Public Plaza’ and ‘Community facilities’ are
uneven structures. The ‘Convenience Shop and Public Plaza’ is approved
for 3 storeys above ground, the ‘Community facilities’ approved for one
storey above ground and the residential towers 20 storeys above ground.
This meant that no approach would be left for fire-fighting and rescue
operations for 1st and 2nd floor flats on the residential tower buildings as
they are completely hidden by the ‘Convenience Shop and Public Plaza’
building (Refer to Annexure-4). A closer examination of the approved
plan indicates that even normal entrance to the residential tower buildings
(block C1 and D) has not been provided with. This is because the rear
half at the stilts level of the residential tower buildings have been covered
with dwelling units and the front open spaces is completely blocked by
the ‘community facilities’ building leaving absolutely no open space
Page 6 of 17
whatsoever for entrance and exit from the buildings. The sanction is
perverse and has been made without application of mind. It is evident
that the authority in collusion with the builder, unsuspecting any scrutiny
later on, has hurriedly put together a plan overlooking even the basic
aspects of building construction.
b. Compounding rule incorrectly applied
The ‘Convenience Shop and Public Plaza’ is a fruit of misrepresentation
and fraud. The building in itself is illegal and should not have been
approved in the first place. The ‘Convenience Shop and Public Plaza’
greatly diminishes the setback required by the residential tower buildings
and endangers the life-safety of the residents of those buildings. It is only
through collusion with the authority staff that the ‘Convenience Shop and
Public Plaza’ has been approved and later compounded even after
repeated complaints from the residents. The GDA employees Mr.
G.S.Goel (CATP) is responsible for approving and Mr.Babu Singh
(Jt.Secratary) for compounding the illegal shop building. Such illegal
constructions are not entitled for compounding as ruled by the Allahabad
high court in Bimla Devi vs Allahabad Development Authority. The
relevant excerpts from the judgment is as below
“What the petitioners contend before the Court is that
they be permitted to keep and retain the fruits of
violating the law for the price of money. The offence
which the petitioners have committed cannot be
purchased by the condonation of compounding as a
Page 7 of 17
penalty. It is an illegality which has to be removed, it
cannot be cured.”
“Summing up and in the net result, narrowing,
occupying and reducing the area of set backs or
violating conforming uses and spaces in urban planning
is an illegality, which is incurable and even if a
Municipality, Corporation or Development
Authority wants to compound the offence, the law
does not permit it.”
Furthermore ‘Convenience Shop and Public Plaza’ building, which is a
fruit of misrepresentation & fraud and was falsely indicated in the plan as
an extension of the residential tower block, is not entitled for
compounding at all. The rule 3.3 of the compounding bye-law clearly and
unambiguously stipulates that any compounding of front, side and rear
setbacks of the buildings are only allowed in the ‘contiguity’ of the main
building (residential tower building in this case) and hence this relaxation
is not at all applicable to ‘Convenience Shop and Public Plaza’ which is
an independent disjoint block.
4. Outcome of misrepresentation
As a result of the misrepresentation and mistakes made by authority as
detailed out above the residential tower blocks C1 and D (each 20 storeys
above ground) have been deprived of the mandatory 15 meters setback.
Instead of 15 Meters setback there exists only 6 (six) Meters (Refer to
Page 8 of 17
Annexure-2). As result of the setback violation the tower block C1 and D
are a serious fire risk as the fire-fighting and rescue apparatus cannot
attend to them effectively in the event of fire or any other emergency
owing to the reduced space. In total lives of 1200 residents have been
endangered. It is to be noted that even the side setback (inter-tower
distance between C1 and D) has not been provided with. The side setback
provided is only about 1 (one) meter against the 15 Meters as mandated
by the bye-laws.
5. Rectification
As many as 7 (seven) written representations have been submitted at the
GDA Vice Chairman’s office. There have been 3 separate meetings with
the Vice Chairman GDA whereby the matter was explained to him
through presentation. Yet no action has been taken.
6. Relief claimed
The residents of tower blocks C1 and D would have to pay with their
lives for the illicit deeds of the builder and the authority if the
‘Convenience Shop and Public Plaza’ building is allowed to exist.
Compliance of the residential tower building C1 and D to the building
code can be restored only by demolishing the ‘Convenience Shop and
Public Plaza’ building in its entirety, there is no other way. It is also
necessary to punish the officers of GDA responsible for sanction of plans
in violation of the building code and thereby resulting in public
endangerment.
Page 9 of 17
7. Grounds
According to section 15 (5) of The U.P. Planning and Development Act
1973 any sanction granted in consequence of material misrepresentation
or any fraudulent statement or information furnished can be cancelled
and work done thereunder shall be deemed to have been done without
such permission. Section 41 of the act grants these same powers to the
State government.
8. Prayer
1. Cancel sanction no.1022/EHA/GH/08-09.
2. Cancel sanctions given to the ‘Convenience Shop and Public Plaza’
building via any other plan.
3. Cancel approval of compounding plan dated 16.03.2011.
4. Demolish ‘Convenience Shop and Public Plaza’ building in its
entirety.
5. Warn the occupants of the tower C1 and D about the fire risk.
6. Dismiss employees of GDA namely the Vice Chairman (Narendra
Chaudhary), the CATP (G.S. Goel) and the Jt. Secretary (Babu Singh)
and take legal action against each one of them.
7. Blacklist builder company ‘Mahagun India Pvt. Ltd’ and impose
sanctions.
You are requested to take meaningful action at the earliest. As things stand
today the residents of the residential towers C1 and D are living in a high
Page 10 of 17
risk zone. If there is a fire today in the residential tower buildings then there
would be heavy loss of life and property as fire-fighting and rescue
apparatus cannot attend to them owing to insufficient open-space. The
residents’ atleast have a right to be aware of the risks and you are requested
to reach out to them at the earliest. As responsible citizens we must ensure
that the mistakes made in the past such as the UPHAAR Cinema tragedy
(Delhi 1997), Carlton towers (Bangalore 2010) and other such man made
disasters are not repeated again.
Thanking you,
Yours Sincerely
Mahesh Narayanan
C-001, Hindon Apartment, Vasundra Enclave, Delhi-110096
Mobile 09891831664
Page 11 of 17
Annexure-1 3D-illustration of layout of the group housing project depicting the composition of buildings
Page 12 of 17
Annexure-2 3D-illustration of Close-Up view of the problem area of the group housing complex
Page 13 of 17
Annexure-3 Misrepresentation in 2009 approved plan vide sanction no.1022/EHA/GH/08-09
Passage-way in front of residential tower buildings completely blocked by the community facilities building (misrepresented as an existing block).
Setback of the shopping complex building misrepresented to be 12 meters wide whereas it is only 6 Meters wide at site. Hence the very basis of approval (12 meter wide setback) of the conjoined block containing the shopping complex block is false.
Page 14 of 17
Annexure‐4 Illustration of cross‐sectional area in 2009 plan describing the flaw
Community Facilities Building
(Ground Floor Only)
Shopping Complex
1st FloorShopping Complex
2nd FloorShopping Complex
Residential TowerBlock D
1st floor
2nd Floor
3rd Floor
4th Floor
Stilt Floor Ground Floor
NO APPROACH
for Fire Fighting and
Rescue for 1st and 2nd Floor
Flats
Upto 20th Floor
Page 15 of 17
Annexure-5 Misrepresentation in approved compounding plan dated 16.03.2011
Width of the drive-way is misrepresented to be 9 Meters wide whereas it is only 6 Meters wide at site.
Setback of the shopping complex building misrepresented as 10 meter wide whereas it is only 6 Meters wide at site
Page 16 of 17
Annexure-6 Rule 3.4.5 of building bye-law
Page 17 of 17