Technical Details of Misrepresent Ion and Fraud at Mahagun Mascot

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

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)


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)


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,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

of 17

Annexure-1 3D-illustration of layout of the group housing project depicting the composition of buildings

of 17

Annexure-2 3D-illustration of Close-Up view of the problem area of the group housing complex

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.

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

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

of 17

Annexure-6 Rule 3.4.5 of building bye-law

of 17

Technical Details of Misrepresent Ion and Fraud at Mahagun Mascot

Documents

Transcript of Technical Details of Misrepresent Ion and Fraud at Mahagun Mascot