Page 1 of 17

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 1 Honble Prime Minister of India 2 3 4 5 6

Date 7th October 2011

Mode Fax 01123019545 Reg.Post Honble President of India Fax 01123017290 Reg.Post Honble Chief Minister of Uttar Fax 05222235733 Pradesh Reg.Post Chief Secretary of Uttar Pradesh Fax 05222239283 Reg.Post Honble Governor of Uttar Fax 05222239488 Pradesh Honble Minister of Urban Fax 05222235364 Development (Govt. of India) 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. 1. P-2-8794/Lo.Shi.0-2/2011 2. 3. 4187/MS/GI/11 4796/MS/GI/11 Date Sender 28.06.2011 U.P Chief office 28.06.2011 U.P Chief office 21.07.2011 U.P Chief

Ministers Secretarys Secretarys

Page 2 of 17

4.

5.

6.

office K-14011/45/2006-UD-II 07.07.2011 Ministry of Urban (Vol.IV) Development (Govt. of India) Subject Public 25.08.2011 Mahesh Narayanan endangerment in Group Housing complex Mahagun Mascot in Ghaziabad due to faulty construction Subject An open letter 26.04.2011 Mahesh Narayanan to Mr. Pawan Kumar Jain and Mr. Dhiraj Jain Directors of Mahagun India (COPY to Dept. of Urb.Dev Govt of U.P) 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

7.

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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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 Chairmans 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 10 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 11 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 12 of 17

Annexure-1

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

Page 13 of 17

Annexure-2

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

Page 14 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 15 of 17

Annexure4 Illustrationofcrosssectional areain2009plandescribing theflaw

Upto 20th Floor

4th Floor

3rd Floor

2nd Floor

1st floor Stilt Floor Residential Tower Block D

NO APPROACH for Fire Fighting and Rescue for 1st and 2nd Floor Flats Community Facilities Building (Ground Floor Only)

2nd Floor Shopping Complex

1st Floor Shopping Complex Ground Floor Shopping Complex

Page 16 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 17 of 17

Annexure-6

Rule 3.4.5 of building bye-law