MAN MOHAN SINGH ATTRI vs UNION OF INDIA & ANR.
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CONT.CAS(C) 647/2024
VISHWAJEET SINGH AND ORS …..Petitioners
Through: Ms. Maninder Acharya, Sr. Adv. with Ms. Shreya Garg, Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Singh, Ms. Suman Gupta and Mr. Kumar Rajesh Singh, Advocates (M:9811129304)
versus
SH SUBHASISH PANDA …..Respondent
Through: Ms. Deepika V. Marwaha, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Sanjay Katyal, Standing Counsel, Mr. Nakul Ahuja, Panel Counsel, Mr. Tanishq Sharma, Mr. Akshay Pratap Singh, Advocates for DDA (M:9953992233)
Mr. Anurag Ahluwalia, CGSC with Mr. Hridyanshi Sharma, Advocate for UOI (M:9811199806)
Ms. Puja Kalra, Standing Counsel with Mr. Virendra Singh, Advocate for MCD (M:9312839323)
+ W.P.(C) 14960/2023 & CM APPL. 59755/2023, CM APPL. 67355/2023, CM APPL. 22037/2024
VISHWAJEET SINGH AND ORS …..Petitioners
Through: Ms. Maninder Acharya, Sr. Adv. with Ms. Shreya Garg, Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Singh, Ms. Suman Gupta, and Mr. Kumar Rajesh Singh, Advocates (M:9811129304)
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS …..Respondents
Through: Ms. Deepika V. Marwaha, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Sanjay Katyal, Standing Counsel, Mr. Nakul Ahuja, Panel Counsel, Mr. Tanishq Sharma, Mr. Akshay Pratap Singh, Advocates for DDA (M:9953992233)
Mr. Bhagvan Swarup Shukla, CGSC with Mr. Sarvan Kumar, Advocate for UOI (M:9910483635)
Ms. Puja Kalra, Standing Counsel with Mr. Virendra Singh, Advocate for MCD (M:9312839323)
Mr. Sachin Jain, Advocate and Mr. Ajay Kumar Agarwal, Advocate for R-5
+ W.P.(C) 3760/2024 & CM APPL. 15454/2024, CM APPL. 42183/2024, CM APPL. 45820/2024, CM APPL. 45821/2024
MAN MOHAN SINGH ATTRI …..Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sachin Jain, Advocate and Mr. Ajay Kumar Agarwal, Adv. with Mr. Man Mohan Singh Atri, Petitioner in person
Mob: 9810292253
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. …..Respondents
Through: Ms. Deepika V. Marwaha, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Sanjay Katyal, Standing Counsel, Mr. Nakul Ahuja, Panel Counsel, Mr. Tanishq Sharma, Mr. Akshay Pratap Singh, Advocates for DDA (M:9953992233)
Mr. Anurag Ahluwalia, CGSC with Mr. Hridyanshi Sharma, Advocate for R-1-UOI (M:9811199806)
Ms. Puja Kalra, Standing Counsel with Mr. Virendra Singh, Advocate for MCD (M:9312839323)
Mr. Udit Malik ASC (Civil) with Mr. Vishal Chanda, Advocate for GNCTD (M:9811981128)
+ W.P.(C) 6850/2024 & CM APPL. 28533/2024, CM APPL. 28534/2024
SHAKUNTALA DEVI & ORS. …..Petitioners
Through: Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Mr. Sandeep Kumar Singh, Mr. Shubhendu Saxena, Mr. Anuvrat, Advocates (M:9958683901)
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. …..Respondents
Through: Ms. Deepika V. Marwaha, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Sanjay Katyal, Standing Counsel, Mr. Nakul Ahuja, Panel Counsel, Mr. Tanishq Sharma, Mr. Akshay Pratap Singh, Advocates for DDA (M:9953992233)
Ms. Pratima N. Lakra, CGSC with Ms. Yashika Garg, Ms. Pinky Pawar, Mr. Chandan Prajapati, Advocates for UOI (M:9968324260)
Ms. Puja Kalra, Standing Counsel with Mr. Virendra Singh, Advocate for MCD (M:9312839323)
CORAM:
HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE MINI PUSHKARNA
J U D G M E N T
23.12.2024
MINI PUSHKARNA, J:
PROLOGUE:
1. The present cases are one of their kinds that bring to the fore shocking facts regarding the apathy displayed by the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) in getting residential towers constructed under the DDA Housing Scheme, which started displaying signs of deterioration within a short span of their disposal and occupation by the residents. Such delinquency and gross negligence by the DDA is unpardonable, as the same has put lives of hundreds of residents therein, to great risk and danger. The residential towers constructed by the DDA have been found to be unfit for habitation by structural experts upon detailed examination and investigation, and have been declared as dangerous. Despite extensive repair work, the degeneration and dilapidation of the structures could not be prevented on account of the poor quality of construction.
2. The facts on record establish structural defects and flaws in the construction of the apartments in question, making them structurally unsafe. Wide and deep cracks have developed in the beams, columns and pillars of the structures. There is corrosion and rusting of the steel bars, with deterioration in the reinforced concrete with heavy corrosion. Incidents of falling of interior ceilings of roofs of the flats, and falling of large lumps of exterior plaster, have been reported continuously. The avid object of Right to Life and Right to Live with Dignity, as embodied in Article 21 of the Constitution of India, has been infracted with impunity, on account of the callousness and dereliction of the DDA.
3. The present cases accentuate the disregard shown by the DDA of its welfare purposes, for which it was established for the development of Delhi. The facts on record underscore the laxity by the DDA in discharging its public functions enshrined under the statute, wherein, ordinary citizens have been put in a perilous situation, on account of substandard and inferior construction of residential towers by DDA.
4. Since the residential towers have been declared as unfit for habitation and dangerous, the present cases deal with the various issues inter-alia regarding the demolition of the residential towers, their reconstruction and rehabilitation of the residents in the interregnum.
INTRODUCTION:
5. The present petitions pertain to Signature View Apartments, Mukherjee Nagar, New Delhi, a residential complex developed by the DDA over a plot of land measuring 2.83 hectares (ha) of land.
5.1 W.P.(C) 14960/2023 has been filed seeking demolition and reconstruction of the flats and blocks (towers) on account of the dilapidated condition of the flats. It is further prayed that the authority, i.e. DDA, not be allowed to construct any extra or additional flats on the existing land.
5.2 W.P.(C) 6850/2024, has been filed challenging Clause VII and X of the Rehabilitation Offer Letter dated 26th June, 2023, to the extent that evacuation and demolition will only be conducted if all the residents provide a No Objection Certificate (NOC) from a bank/financial institution regarding encumbrances on any of the property, and that rent/compensation for alternate accommodation shall only be given to the residents only after all residents hand over the possession of the flats. The same is sought on the ground that the conditions in the said Clauses are illegal and arbitrary, and 70% of flat owners, i.e. 250 out of 336 flats, have already given their consent.
5.3 W.P.(C) 3760/2024 has been filed by one resident of the Signature View Apartments, thereby challenging the authority of the DDA to carry out the demolition and re-construction of the flats in question, and praying for restraining the respondents from demolishing the Signature View Apartments, without following the due process of law.
5.4 CONT.CAS(C) 647/2024 has been filed alleging non-compliance of the order dated 20th November, 2023, passed in W.P.(C) 14960/2023, wherein, it was directed that no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioners. Since, DDA had issued a bid, inviting applications from contractors for razing/demolition of 336 flats of the society in newspapers despite operation of the interim order, the contempt petition came to be filed.
FACTUAL MATRIX:
6. Facts of the case, as canvassed in W.P.(C) 14960/2023, are as follows:-
6.1 Signature View Apartments is part of a multi-storey housing scheme of 2010 by DDA comprising of 336 flats, out of which, 224 flats are part of Higher Income Group (HIG) category and the remaining 112 flats are of the Middle Income Group (MIG) category. It comprises of 12 blocks, namely blocks A to L. Each block consists of stilt plus 10 floors, except blocks F and G, which consist of stilt plus 6 floors. Each floor has three flats, of which two are HIG and one is MIG.
6.2 The housing scheme is divided into three groups. Group I comprising of 150 flats located in blocks H, I, J, K and L, Group II comprising of 96 flats located in blocks D, E, F and G and Group III comprising of 90 flats located in blocks A, B and C. The construction of all the three groups, were completed in/around September/October, 2010.
6.3 The flats were allotted through DDA housing draw of 2010, 2014 and 2017. Last allotment was done in October, 2019. As per the housing scheme of 2010 and terms and conditions of Conveyance Deed, the respondent no. 2 is bound to maintain not only the building constructions comprising of 12 blocks, but also the streets/lanes, roads, parks, lifts, drains, gate valves, roof top gates, marbles and granites fixed on lift walls, overhead tanks, drain pipes etc. for 30 years, as the price of the flats included the maintenance charges for next 30 years. However, DDA has not been discharging their duty in proper manner.
6.4 After 2-3 years of the first allotment of the flats in the year 2010 and possession thereof in the year 2012, the grit wash/plasters of the exterior walls of the buildings of most of the blocks/towers started falling, and pillars and columns had developed cracks. By 2013-2014, the exterior plasters/grit wash of many buildings had fallen, leaving the multi-storey buildings in bare and ugly conditions. Even the interior ceilings of roof of flats started falling in the year 2012.
6.5 The building materials used in construction of the flats are of sub-standard and spurious quality. Even the fixtures, like water pipes, fittings and fixtures, are of poor and sub-standard quality and the works done were not upto the set standard mark. Grit wash and large lumps of concrete started falling 2-3 years after the completion of structures/buildings. These incidents of falling of concrete lumps, ceilings and grit wash have continued intermittently and was informed to DDA vide letter dated 10th January, 2014.
6.6 The Resident Welfare Association (RWA) brought these incidents to the knowledge of the DDA and lodged a complaint dated 10th February, 2014 against the officials of the DDA with the Police Station, Mukherjee Nagar. The residents also made representations dated 11th February, 2014 before the Vice-Chairman, DDA as well as to Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD), requesting them to get the repair works done in damaged flats and garage, and to get the entire complex inspected by a suitable agency.
6.7 A meeting was convened on 04th April, 2014 between the residents and DDA regarding the structural issues, however, no action for repairs was taken thereafter. Pillars of some of the buildings have developed wide deep cracks and the steel bars have become rusted. Due to corrosion and rusting of steel bars, the cracks have developed in the pillars of all the buildings, which are basic to the strength of the structure of 10 storey buildings. The pillars are not in a condition or have strength to take load of and support the 10 storey buildings. The DDA has compromised with the quality of building materials as well as structural constructions of the multi-storey buildings at every stage.
6.8 There is a persistent threat to life and well-beings of the residents of the society. The residents have paid their lifetime savings as hefty price of the flat to respondent no. 2, and in return they have bought threat to their life.
6.9 Residents of the society have made several complaints and representations to the DDA individually, as well through the RWA. Repair work is undertaken, only after 2-3 months of the complaint and there is inordinate delay in the execution and completion of the repair work. During the repair work, the residents have to vacate the flat and shift somewhere else in another accommodation, for which the residents have to pay huge amount of rent due to repair works taking more than 7-8 months and on occasion a year.
6.10 Upon complaints and repeated reminders by the residents, the DDA engaged National Council for Cement and Building Materials (NCCBM) to undertake the work for assessment of quality of the construction material. The NCCBM carried out its investigations by collecting samples and visual inspection on different dates in each tower/block and submitted its report in 2015. The report of NCCBM speaks in volume about the quality of construction of the flats and buildings of the apartment.
6.11 Several other instances occurred wherein ceilings/roofs along with the grit continued to fall and the same was brought to the knowledge of DDA vide letter dated 10th August, 2015.
6.12 Subsequently, owing to the complaints of the residents, respondent no. 2 carried out an inspection of the buildings and flats, which fact is indicated by the inspection note dated 24th August, 2015, and directions were issued for maintenance and repair works. Pursuant thereto, repairs were started. However, the repair works were only cosmetic in nature, as the structure of buildings is fundamentally weak, as sub-standard materials were used at the time of construction. Wide and deep cracks started to be palpably visible in beams and pillars of the structures. The officials of the DDA have remained insensitive and indifferent to the problems/issues of the residents. The residents have been living under the constant threat of life and security.
6.13 DDA again approached NCCBM regarding the issue of falling of plaster and lumps of concrete. Thereafter, upon inspection, the NCCBM issued the Preliminary Report on 18th February, 2019 and the Final Report on 8th June 2022.
6.14 There are numerous flats where incidents of falling of roof/ceiling have taken place, towards which another letter dated 18th June, 2019 was sent to the DDA, after which repair works were again undertaken. However, despite repair work, incidents of falling of roof/ceiling kept on taking place.
6.15 A meeting was conducted on 02nd December, 2021 between the residents, office bearers of RWA and DDA, after which direction was issued for expediting the engagement of Indian Institute of Technology (IIT), Delhi.
6.16 Structural audit of the buildings was done by the DDA through Shri Ram Institute of Industrial Research (Shri Ram Institute) and IIT, Delhi. The report from IIT, Delhi was submitted by Professor Shashank Bishnoi on 19th December, 2022 and procured by the petitioners by way of response dated 09th January, 2023 to the RTI application dated 21st December, 2022. The conclusion of the report indicated very clearly that the structures cannot be repaired and the only way out is to demolish them and after demolition, new structures can be built.
6.17 Thus, a General Body Meeting (GBM) of the residents/members of the petitioners society was held on 15th January, 2023, wherein, it was decided that re-construction of all the flats needs to be done.
6.18 Several meetings dated 30th January, 2023, 16th March, 2023 and 16th May, 2023, were held between the representatives of the residents and the Vice-Chairman of DDA regarding rehabilitation. However, the rehabilitation offers given by the DDA were not acceptable to most of the residents, including, the petitioners.
6.19 In the Final Proposal dated 26th June, 2023, the respondent no. 2 has proposed to construct 168 additional flats by using the additional Floor Area Ratio (FAR), which belongs to the petitioners and other co-residents. The petitioners are not only the owners of flats, but also owners of land, as the petitioners have paid land cost to the DDA as per the Conveyance Deed.
6.20 The petitioners and other co-residents are not being paid even appropriate rent as per prevailing rent in well located society or Central Public Works Department (CPWD) norms, so as to enable them to relocate in an accommodation of similar size and specification.
6.21 Thus, the present writ petition has been filed.
6.22 When the present matter was listed for hearing on 20th November, 2023, it was directed that no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioners till the next date of hearing. Subsequently, on 14th March, 2024, this Court directed the Union of India to carry out inspection of the buildings in question and to specify the status of buildings as regards its habitability, structural safety and course of action with regard thereto, while issuing notice in the connected matter, being W.P.(C) 3760/2024.
6.23 The DDA issued a Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) dated 15th March, 2024, inviting bid applications from contractors for demolition of the 336 flats of the Signature View Apartments, which was published in the newspapers on 28th March, 2024. Thus, contempt petition being CONT.CAS(C) 647/2024, has been filed.
7. Facts of the case, as canvassed in W.P.(C) 6850/2024, are as follows:-
7.1 The petitioners, being residents of the Signature View Apartments, are aggrieved by the Final Rehabilitation Offer proposal dated 26th June, 2023 of DDA, for their rehabilitation.
7.2 The RWA met with DDA on 07th February, 2023 and made first quantified proposal on rehabilitation options. The RWA received first concrete Rehabilitation Proposal from the DDA on 10th February, 2023. However, the said Rehabilitation Proposal of the DDA was not acceptable to the residents. Subsequently, the Vice-Chairman, DDA called a meeting with RWA to discuss its demands, on 16th March, 2023. Pursuant thereto, the DDA gave another Rehabilitation Plan. The RWA requested to make certain modifications in the said Rehabilitation Plan.
7.3 Final Rehabilitation Offer of the DDA was supplied to the RWA vide letter dated 26th June, 2023. The RWA raised certain issues as regards the Clause regarding all flats to be vacated before payment of rent for alternate accommodation to the residents, by the DDA. The RWA highlighted the urgent action needed to ensure immediate payment of rent to enable safe evacuation of the residents.
7.4 Thus, being aggrieved by the Final Rehabilitation Offer dated 26th June, 2023, the present writ petition has been filed.
8. Facts of the case, as canvassed in W.P.(C) 3760/2024, are as follows:-
8.1 Petitioner and his family members are bona fide residents of the housing society, viz. Signature View Apartments.
8.2 The petitioner had sought his impleadment and got impleaded as respondent no. 5 in W.P.(C) 14960/2023, vide order dated 23rd January, 2024. However, the present petition has been filed by the petitioner in his substantive rights, as the petitioners in W.P.(C) 14960/2023, have been working towards only one end, i.e., demolition of the flats in question.
8.3 The flats in question were sold by the DDA. For this purpose, the DDA issued brochures for sale of the flats in 2010, under the scheme DDA Housing Scheme, 2010. As per the said brochure, the DDA collected amount for maintenance of common areas and it was stipulated that DDA would provide maintenance of common areas for 30 years. The cost on account has been added as one time maintenance cost @ 12% and @15% of construction cost, in case of flats without lifts/with lifts, respectively.
8.4 The flats were sold on free hold basis, for which free hold charges were collected. Demand notice for collection of cost of the flats shows that the cost of the land and cost of construction were separately collected for each flat and separate maintenance charges @15% of cost of flats, were collected.
8.5 DDA issued a notice dated 06th May, 2019, on the subject of General Principles of Maintenance of DDA Flats, as per which, the individual flat owners were fully responsible for all internal maintenance of their flats, after they take over the possession. Thus, DDA was not responsible for internal maintenance of the flats.
8.6 Some of the owners/buyers/purchasers of the flats have renovated their flats with good quality of Plaster of Paris (POP), using iron mesh, which is rust proof, strong and having long life. The iron mesh can withstand the weight of POP and the attachments. These false ceilings made with iron mesh and good quality of POP etc., have not fallen.
8.7 Signature View Apartments are the only apartments constructed by any government agency or private builders, which are earthquake proof in entire National Capital Region. From the year 2010 to the year 2024, i.e., over the period of 14 years, as many as tens of earthquakes have come, but there is no effect of the earthquake on any of the 12 towers.
8.8 Demolition and reconstruction is not in the domain of the DDA in case of dangerous building. Moreover, the Parliament of India has passed an Act to provide for the development of Delhi according to Plan, and for matters ancillary thereto, and passed the Delhi Development Act, 1957 (DDA Act). The Parliament has not given any power to the DDA to reconstruct any building, apartments, flats, etc. Therefore, the DDA cannot manoeuvre and reconstruct the flats of Signature View Apartments.
8.9 Some of the members of the RWA have created an atmosphere of terror, putting fear in the minds of the residents/owners, so that they may sell their flats at a throw away price. From January, 2023 to till date, it is learnt that about 25 flats have been sold by the residents at a throw away price.
8.10 The RWA is a voluntary association registered on 16th January, 2014 under the Society Registration Act, 1860 and not as a statutory association, as envisaged under the Delhi Apartment Ownership Act, 1986 (Delhi Apartment Act). The main objective of the association, as per its constitution, is to achieve the welfare of the members of the association. The RWA, therefore, does not have any competence to represent or bind all 336 stakeholders, including, the petitioner, in their decision to demolish the free hold property of a private individual.
8.11 The DDA has collected amount to the tune of ?21 crores as maintenance charges from the owner/purchaser/buyers of the flats. The maintenance charges were collected @15% of the cost of the construction of flats. The DDA published in its brochures that it would provide maintenance of common areas for 30 years as per Schedule. The DDA has not performed any duties for the maintenance of common areas, till date.
8.12 Work of detailed testing was awarded to Shri Ram Institute. However, its report is not reliable, as the team of Shri Ram Institute did not observe and follow the provisions stipulated in Manual of Collection of Samples from beams and pillars of the towers. There is likelihood that these samples collected by Shri Ram Institute can be tampered/ changed by a material, which is poor in quality. Therefore, the investigation made on the basis of samples does not appear to be reliable. Further, Shri Ram Institute is not on the panel of the DDA.
8.13 Vide Circular dated 27th January, 2023, Vice-Chairman, DDA formed a Committee, to visit the Signature View Apartments. Upon their first visit, the residents expressed opinion that the buildings in the flats were good and strong enough, and did not require demolition and reconstruction. All the 12 towers/blocks have withstood the after-effects of earthquakes and other calamities for all these years.
8.14 The MCD issued order dated 18th December, 2023 under Sections 348 and 349 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation (DMC) Act, 1957, from the Office of Executive Engineer (Maintenance)-I, Civil Lines Zone. The said notice issued by MCD is bad in law and due process has not been followed. The Commissioner of the MCD has not undertaken any due diligence before making any order under Sections 348 and 349 of the DMC Act. The Commissioner/his delegate, has apparently failed to record their subjective satisfaction with respect to the condition of the building to be in a ruinous condition or is likely to fall or in any way dangerous to any person. The impugned notice issued by the MCD, is based merely upon the information received from the DDA. The information given by the DDA cannot supplant the statutory duties and function of the MCD, to record its own satisfaction under the DMC Act.
8.15 Thus, by way of the present petition, it is prayed that directions should be issued to the DDA to carry out the repair works as envisaged in the letter dated 06th January, 2023 issued by the DDA. The petitioner is also seeking quashing of the Minutes of the Meetings dated 17th May, 2023 and 04th August, 2023 pursuant to which, decision to demolish/reconstruct Signature View Apartments, was taken.
8.16 Thus, the present petition has been filed.
Submissions of the Petitioners:
9. On behalf of the petitioners in W.P.(C) 14960/2023, following submissions have been made:
9.1 On account of acts of corruption and mal-administration of the DDA and the MCD in construction of multi-storey buildings, with substandard building materials, the life of the petitioners and other residents of the petitioner-society, has been put to serious threat. Cracks in pillars have developed, and there are incidents of roofs/ceilings of house/flats falling, on account of which, the life and security of the petitioners and other residents has been put at peril, in violation of fundamental rights of the residents, as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
9.2 The DDA has illegally and unlawfully claimed right over the available FAR, which belongs to the petitioners, by virtue of conveyance deed and other applicable laws in force. The DDA has taken arbitrary and unreasonable decision for using the available FAR and constructing additional number of flats, which shall completely spoil the environment and the natural boundaries, including, air and open space.
9.3 The petitioners have no faith in the DDA and their integrity and the new construction should be done by an institution/construction company of repute. The new construction works must be under the supervision and scrutiny of the consultant of IIT and engaged agencies must examine the construction quality at every stage. Flats should be handed over to the residents only after obtaining NOC from the IIT Consultant and/or engaged agencies.
9.4 The DDA has not maintained the buildings, roads, drains, water pipelines, lifts, marbles, etc. and have misappropriated the amount of ? 21 crores taken by them from the petitioners and other co-residents, against maintenance charges for 30 years. The same amounts to violation of the legal rights and interests of the petitioners.
9.5 The flats allotted to the petitioners by the DDA were not in liveable condition. The petitioners and other co-residents have incurred expenses towards renovation and interior works, to which the petitioners are entitled to be compensated.
9.6 Petitioners are entitled to rental amount as per the prevailing market rate in a well gated society or as per CPWD norms, which has been denied by the DDA in an arbitrary manner, by taking unilateral decision. Additionally, the petitioners are also entitled to one-time expenses to be incurred towards relocating themselves, which has been denied by DDA unreasonably.
9.7 The DDA cannot claim any right of any nature whatsoever, including, ownership of land beneath the freehold flats, common area, community space and road/pathways, etc. which form part of the residential society. Thus, the DDA cannot claim any right over additional FAR emerging out of the area of land in question.
9.8 The petitioners have purchased the flats by taking into account the original sanctioned layout plan of the housing society with regard to the parking area, the community space, common area, green area, sunlight and other basic amenities. Thus, the DDA cannot alter/change the layout plan of the commercial plots, which was originally sanctioned/ approved as commercial building. The petitioners have purchased the freehold flats having absolute right not only over the flat and land underneath, but also the common area.
9.9 The DDA has no power to take back the land, land rights or any benefits accruing from the land in terms of FAR under any provision of the DDA Act. The DDA cannot acquire any land rights of the petitioners, without following the procedure as provided under Section 15 of the DDA Act.
9.10 As far as rehabilitation is concerned, the petitioners are entitled to an accommodation, which is equally similar to the accommodation in which the petitioners are residing. According to the CPWD guidelines, the rent should be 7% per annum of the evaluation of the property in question.
9.11 The contention of the DDA that Delhi Apartment Act does not apply to the facts of the present case, is totally wrong. The said Act categorically states the same shall apply to every apartment in a multi-storey building, which was constructed mainly for residential/commercial and other purposes.
9.12 Due to the nefarious acts of the DDA officials, 336 families have been rendered to be homeless. The petitioners have been put under constant threat to their life since the possession of the flats was handed over in the year 2012. Instead of being gracious and compensating the petitioners, the DDA is trying to take advantage and earn profit by constructing additional 168 flats, making the society/apartment unliveable. Such action of the DDA is unlawful and contrary to the Delhi Apartment Act and the Master Plan of Delhi, 2021 (MPD 2021).
9.13 DDA is not doing any charity in the present case, by intending to demolish and reconstruct the buildings completely. Rather, the DDA is liable to be punished for misdeed/mischief and the residents are entitled to reconstruction of their flats. The DDA cannot be permitted to take away even a single inch of land, land rights and/or FAR of the petitioners and other allottees.
9.14 The judgments relied upon by the DDA are not applicable to the facts of the case, as they were delivered in different context. The Delhi Apartment Act is a special and welfare enactment. Law is well-settled that in case of conflict between two enactments, even though both are special, the latter shall prevail. There is no conflict between the provisions of the DDA Act and Delhi Apartment Act.
10. On behalf of the petitioners in W.P.(C) 6850/2024, following submissions have been made:
10.1 Given the poor construction quality of the Signature View Apartments, the petitioners and their family members, that includes senior citizens, children and toddlers, are under imminent and perilous threat to their lives. So far there have been several instances of fall of plaster. The pillars of some of the buildings have developed deep cracks and the steel bars are rusted. The pillars are not in a condition and do not have the strength to take load of and support multi-storey building.
10.2 The delinquent officials of the DDA have compromised with the quality of building materials, as well as structural constructions of the multi-storey building at every stage. The petitioners have paid their lifetime savings to purchase the flat from DDA, with the hope to have a decent roof over the head of the family. However, on account of the dereliction of duty by the DDA officials, the dream of the petitioners has turned into nightmare of staying in a structure, which is likely to collapse at any point of time.
10.3 The incidents of falling of parts of roof, ceilings and concrete lumps, were continuous, on account of which the RWA followed on the progress of testing of building structures and analysis by the NCCBM and IIT, Delhi. On account of the persistence of the RWA and residents of the society in question, DDA agreed for demolition and reconstruction of the towers and rehabilitation of the petitioners and other residents of the Society. However, the rehabilitation offer of the DDA is impracticable.
10.4 The condition in Clause X of the Final Rehabilitation Offer of the DDA is unreasonable and arbitrary, and in violation of the fundamental rights enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The said respondent, as instrumentality of the State, cannot put such an arbitrary condition rendering the rehabilitation programme so vulnerable, as a single flat owner could frustrate it. The entitlement of rent of a willing flat owner who is ready to handover possession, has to wait till every single owner hands over the flat, is arbitrary and impracticable, as to deny the entitlement to even those who are abiding by rehabilitation in its true spirit. This shows the callous and arbitrary attitude and high handedness of the DDA, wherein, in identical situation, the threshold is of 50% not 100% of handing over of the possession.
10.5 The DDA in the impugned Rehabilitation Offer, does not mention the enhancement of rate of rent, or compensation to be paid, if the reconstructed flats are not handed over within three years of stipulated time.
10.6 The respondents, under the guise of inaction of all flat owners in handing over the possession of flats, cannot procrastinate the Rehabilitation Programme, as its protraction is putting the residents under imminent danger.
10.7 The petitioners are facing the present situation only on account of corruption and poor construction of the building by the DDA. Whereas, the DDA has inducted such a Clause in the Rehabilitation Offer letter, that it makes the initiation of Rehabilitation Programme impossible in near future, as there is unlikelihood of all flat owners willingly handing over the possession of the flats, which is a condition precedent for initiation of demolition and entitlement of rent, even for those who are willing to hand over the possession.
10.8 The impugned Rehabilitation Letter dated 26th June, 2023 requiring NOC from bank/financial institutions for demolition and rehabilitation is unnecessary, and aimed at making the entire exercise impossible. Each flat owner who has taken housing loan, is responsible for the payment of loan to the banks, and it is the issue between bank and the individual flat owners.
11. On behalf of the petitioners in W.P.(C) 3760/2024, following submissions have been made:
11.1 The notice dated 18th December, 2023 issued by the MCD for demolition of the Signature View Apartments, is bad in law, for the Commissioner of MCD has not undertaken any due diligence, before making an order, under Section 348 and 349 of the DMC Act. There is no subjective satisfaction of the Commissioner or his delegate with respect to the condition of the building to be in a ruinous condition.
11.2 The impugned notice by the MCD for demolition is based merely upon the information received from the DDA. The information given by the DDA cannot supplant the statutory duties and functions of the MCD to record its own satisfaction under the DMC Act.
11.3 The impugned notice does not give the opportunity to the residents to Show Cause why the order of demolition should not be made, nor gives them the right to file an appeal before the competent authority.
11.4 The entire premises are enclosed by a wall having a height of more than 10 feet. The DDA has collected maintenance charges at the time of sale of the flats to the tune of ? 21 crores. However, the petitioners and other owners/buyers of the flats are spending the money on cleaning of roads, etc. from their own pockets. Moreover, the purchasers of the flats have paid cost of the land and cost of the construction separately. Therefore, every inch of the land inside the four walled enclosure of the Signature View Apartments, proportionately belongs to each resident/buyer of the flat.
11.5 DDA ought to be directed to carry out the repair/ reinforcement works in the towers of the society in question. Further, directions be given for initiating investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) against the builders and the erring employees of DDA, who were involved in the construction of buildings of Signature View Apartments.
11.6 The DDA had earlier hired an agency to carry out the repair work in the society. However, the said agency was stopped from working by guards of the RWA. The petitioners, thus, pray that DDA be directed to take the help of Police for carrying out repair work in the flats, if the RWA stops them from doing repair work.
11.7 The RWA is against the repairs, but is in agreement for demolition of flats and reconstruction, because of the ulterior, greedy, profit making motive of certain members of the Managing Committee of the Signature View Apartments. The entire repair work would have been completed long back, but due to high handedness of RWA, the repairs could not be taken up. In the meantime, the owners/buyers have been so terrorized, that about 25 owners have sold their flats at throwaway prices to the relatives and friends of unscrupulous members of Managing Committee of RWA, during January, 2023, till date.
11.8 The petitioner, in his individual capacity, has consulted the report of IIT, with senior architects and civil engineers. They have all pointed out various deficiencies, loopholes and glaring defects in the report of IIT, Delhi. Therefore, there arises a serious doubt against the report of the IIT, Delhi.
11.9 The petitioner and his family members are the bona fide residents of the housing society in question. Any directions or decision by the authorities towards demolition of the Apartments, will adversely affect the rights of the petitioner, as enshrined and guaranteed by Articles 14 read with Article 300-A of the Constitution of India.
11.10 From the year 2010 to the year 2024, over the period of 14 years, as many as 12 earthquakes of moderate to heavy magnitude, have come. However, there is no effect of the earthquake on any of the 12 towers. Signature View Apartments are the only Apartments constructed by any government agency or private builders, which are earthquake proof in entire National Capital Region.
11.11 The report of Shri Ram Institute cannot be relied upon, as the said institute has not identified the samples extracted from pillars and beams of all the 12 blocks of Signature View Apartments. Therefore, the samples so extracted by the team of Shri Ram Institute, are not as per the norms, rules and laws in extracting the samples. There is likelihood that these samples can be tampered/ changed by a material, which is poor in quality. Thus, the investigation made on the basis of the said samples, does not appear to be reliable.
12. On behalf of the petitioners in CONT.CAS(C) 647/2024, following submissions have been made:
12.1 The writ petition being W.P.(C)14960/2023, was listed for hearing for the first time on 20th November, 2023, when this Court directed that no coercive steps be taken against the petitioners. The protection as granted by the Court to the petitioners vide order dated 20th November, 2023 has continued till date. However, the petitioners were shocked to read the news about DDA inviting bid applications from contractors for razing/demolishing the 336 flats of the society, in the newspapers on 28th March, 2024. The DDA has issued NIT on 15th March, 2024.
12.2 The act of inviting tender by the DDA for demolition of the flats in question, amounts to overreaching the authority of this Court, and clear violation of the orders dated 22nd November, 2023 and 14th March, 2024, passed by this Court.
12.3 Thus, there is urgent need for restraining the DDA from proceeding any further, to invite tender from contractors to demolish the building and to take necessary action against the DDA for inviting tender.
Submissions of Delhi Development Authority:
13. On behalf of the DDA, following submissions have been made:
13.1 Due to the various complaints by the RWA and other residents of the Signature View Apartments, the DDA engaged NCCBM and got all the blocks/towers inspected, pursuant to which, repair work was carried out. Subsequently, a structural consultant from IIT, Delhi was engaged who reported about the dilapidated condition of the existing towers. Thereafter, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, decision was taken to demolish the flats in question, and reconstruct the same.
13.2 The present petitions have been filed mala fidely by the petitioners to secure their own vested interests and to disrupt the bona fide actions of the DDA, in order to secure the safety and security of the residents of the Signature View Apartments.
13.3 There is imminent threat to the residents of the Signature View Apartments, if the entire premises are not vacated at the earliest. Due to a handful of petitioners, the majority of residents are under constant threat.
13.4 The DDA has considered the demolition of towers of Signature View Apartments after detailed interactions with the RWA members and on their assurances that all 336 allottees of the Apartments are agreeable with the redevelopment process. Furthermore, over 100 residents/allottees, have already vacated their flats, and many more are in the process of doing the same.
13.5 Petitioners are trying to misguide and influence the remaining residents for mala fide reasons best known to them, for not vacating the premises, and putting everyones lives at grave risk.
13.6 The DDA has been fully responsive to all the demands raised by the residents/allottees through the RWA of Signature View Apartments, as various meetings have been convened to address and discuss at length, all the issues and matters presented on behalf of the residents/allottees of the Apartments, by the RWA representatives.
13.7 The DDA has not indulged in any corruption and it is denied that the building material used, was of substandard and spurious quality. Appropriate action was undertaken by the DDA on the representations of the allottees of the Signature View Apartment. Inquiry was conducted by the DDA on the complaints received and immediate redressal was also provided to the allottees.
13.8 The petitioners contend that there can be a disaster in the premises. However, they are continuing to stay in the premises, despite the DDA having offered a very positive solution to them. The present petitions are liable to be dismissed in view of the contradictory stands taken by the petitioners. The DDA has been repeatedly requesting the RWA to vacate the subject premises at the earliest, which request has been appreciated by majority of the residents. Unfortunately, a handful of residents have approached this Court and have made contradictory submissions.
13.9 The DDA has offered the facilitation amount towards rent of ? 38,000/- for MIG and ? 50,000/- for HIG, after conducting a proper survey of the surrounding areas, and in consultation with the RWA. The said amounts being agreed to be paid by DDA, are in the nature of facilitation amount towards rent and not compensation for the same. The said amounts, per se, are to enable the rehabilitation of the residents at a reasonable place during the construction period.
13.10 The inordinate delay in execution and completion of reconstruction work is attributable solely and exclusively to the handful of petitioners, who have become an impediment in the execution of the amicable settlement reached between the RWA and the DDA.
13.11 Unless and until each and every one of the 336 residents/allottees, vacate the premises, the work of demolition of towers and reconstruction work, cannot commence.
13.12 For any new construction, including, group housing scheme, which is to be started or executed, the same has to be as per the norms prescribed in prevailing MPD 2021, Unified Building Byelaws (UBBL), 2016 and fire safety. As per the prevailing norms of MPD 2021 and UBBL 2016, a number of enhanced, as well as, additional facilities will be available for the residents. MPD 2021 provides for community facilities, including, multipurpose hall, senior citizen hall, crèche and 8 small shops for fulfilling the day to day needs of the residents.
13.13 Furthermore, to meet the housing requirement for the increasing population of Delhi, the FAR and density norms that were followed earlier, have been enhanced in MPD 2021. In comparison to the FAR available of the 167 in MPD 2001, the MPD 2021 provides for enhanced FAR of 200. It also provides for other enhanced and additional facilities for the residents, for which DDA will not charge any amount as it is being provided as per the revised norms of MPD 2021 and UBBL 2016.
13.14 The DDA has in its possession, un-utilized vacant land measuring 0.67 ha adjacent to these apartments, which DDA, after consultation with RWA of Signature View Apartment, has decided to add in the reconstruction project for making an optimal, comprehensive and viable reconstruction project. Considering the prevailing norms and by further utilising the additional vacant plot of 0.67 ha in its possession, the construction of additional flats vide development of the said grouping housing scheme, is essential for optimal utilization of land with additional facilities for residents. Due to integration/ addition of the said 0.67 ha, the central green area within the subject housing green pocket has increased substantially by 66%.
13.15 The DDA Act has an overriding and binding effect and is supreme, in so far as all the activities in Delhi, are concerned. Any construction/re-construction can be done, so long as it emanates out of the DDA Act, the UBBL 2016 and MPD 2021.
13.16 The DDA (Management & Disposal of Housing Estate) Regulations, 1968 (DDA 1968 Regulations), define conveyance deed as an agreement between the DDA and the allottee, by which the title in the property is transferred to the allottee on the terms and conditions specified in the said agreement. Regulation 54 and 55 provide for transfer of the property, as effected through the conveyance deed. The binding conveyance deed executed between the parties, does not mention about any fixed proportionate interest in the land or any proportionate interest in the undivided areas. A conjoint reading of the DDA 1968 Regulations and the conveyance deed show that what has been transferred/sold in the instant case, is only the right, title and interest qua the specific flat in question, i.e., strictly the area within the flat, and nothing beyond that.
13.17 The Delhi Apartments Act in Section 4(3) specifies that every person becomes entitled to exclusive ownership and possession of such percentage of undivided interest in the common areas and facilities, as may be specified in the deed of apartment. The conveyance deed executed by DDA in favour of the allottees, does not make any reference to either the common areas or the FAR. No fixed proportionate share of land has been allotted to the allottees.
13.18 The instant case of Signature View Apartments is one of its kind, where the towers/apartments stood fully constructed, but on account of the supervening circumstances of the structure having been found to be unsafe/dangerous by structural experts, the DDA is undertaking the impugned construction.
13.19 The process of re-construction is being undertaken strictly in public interest out of public exchequer. The user of the apartments is not being changed, in as much as the same shall continue to remain as residential.
13.20 The apartment owners post the reconstruction, will get the benefit of enhanced and additional facilities, such as community facilities, like multipurpose hall, senior citizen hall, crèche, etc.
13.21 The MPD 2021 has an avowed objective of making optimum utilisation of available resources/ land. Accordingly, the DDA is utilising the increased FAR for the construction of additional 168 flats. By virtue of increased FAR, if the DDA seeks to recoup the public exchequer by auctioning the additional 168 flats to be constructed, without depriving the petitioners of any existing benefit/facility, the said exercise is strictly in public interest. There is no violation of Article 300A of the Constitution of India, as the DDA is not depriving anyone from his/her property.
13.22 Both MCD and CPWD have confirmed and corroborated that the decision of the DDA arrived at in consultation with RWA, of demolition and reconstruction of all the towers, is correct.
13.23 Out of 336 flat owners, 159 have approached this Court and only one petitioner, i.e., Man Mohan Singh Attri, has sought quashing of order dated 18th December, 2023 issued by MCD under Sections 348 and 349 of the DMC Act. The decision/ opinion of the Commissioner MCD, arrived at after a thorough assessment, after considering opinions of other technical experts and in view of the safety of residents, is on a technical question of structural stability. Therefore, it cannot be in law questioned by one resident, who feels that the opinion is wrong.
13.24 In view of the settled law that the Courts would not step into the shoes of an expert, and render a contrary opinion, especially, when the lives and safety of citizens are involved, it is clear that the petitioners have failed to make out any case on the merits of the matter.
Submissions of Municipal Corporation of Delhi:
14. On behalf of the MCD, following submissions have been made:
14.1 A committee was constituted by the MCD under the Chairmanship of Chief Engineer, Civil Lines Zone, to examine the report of structural consultant of IIT, Delhi and to initiate proceedings as per Section 348 and 349 of the DMC Act. It was considered that the DDA had already made detailed study of the various aspects.
14.2 The competent authority of MCD applied its mind to various reports of detailed study, submitted by the experts. Thus, it came to the conclusion that in larger public interest, order under Sections 348 and 349 of the DMC Act, was required to be issued, as the towers are dangerous and not fit for habitation.
14.3 The order dated 18th December, 2023 under Sections 348 and 349 of DMC Act was passed after proper compliance, thereby, directing the owners/occupier of signature view apartments to vacate the premises for appropriate action to be taken with respect to dangerous buildings.
Submission of Union of India:
15. On behalf of the Union of India, following submissions have been made:
15.1 The Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs, Government of India, constituted a committee of experts. The committee held its meeting on 04th April, 2024 and visually inspected all the 12 blocks of the Signature View Apartments. Thus, the committee has submitted its report that it is not possible to carry out any repair work in the buildings and that the buildings are not habitable, due to significant distress as observed.
15.2 The buildings in question are structurally unsafe, as corrosion in almost all structures has been developed significantly.
Submission of Residents Welfare Association (RWA):
16. On behalf of the RWA, following submissions have been made:
16.1 The RWA has actively pursued with the DDA about the problem of falling of ceiling and development of deep cracks in the column and pillars. The RWA demanded to assess the physical strength of the buildings and requested to demolish and reconstruct the buildings if the same was not suitable for habitation.
16.2 Even though extensive repair work was carried out pursuant to report of NCCBM, the problem persisted. Thus, upon recommendation of IIT, Delhi for detailed testing, Shri Ram Institute gave its report recommending demolition and re-construction of the Signature View Apartments.
16.3 DDA has offered rent for alternate accommodation on vacation of 336 flats, i.e., 100% vacation of the flats. Such demand/ condition to pay rent on 100% vacation of flats, is onerous. 75% of the allottees/ owners/ residents have given their consent to the proposal of respondent no.2 DDA, subject to payment of rent on evacuation, as many of them cannot afford to continue paying the Equated Monthly Instalments (EMIs) towards their home loan, and simultaneously also be saddled with the recurring monthly liability of bearing the rent for their alternate suitable accommodation at par with the present one.
Findings and Analysis:
17. I have heard learned counsels for the parties and have perused the record.
Issues Involved:
18. There are broadly five issues which are primarily required to be adjudicated by this Court, in these proceedings. Firstly, considering the deteriorated condition of the construction in the Signature View Apartments, whether, the towers therein are liable to be demolished and reconstructed, or whether the extensive repair work therein should be the course of action. The DDA has already indicated that decision has been taken that the demolition and reconstruction of the towers existing in Signature View Apartments shall be undertaken by the DDA. Secondly, whether the DDA has any authority to demolish and reconstruct the flats in question. Thirdly, whether the DDA is authorized to construct additional 168 flats on account of the increase in the available FAR as per the prevailing norms. Fourthly, whether the demolition notice issued by the MCD is proper and lawful. Fifthly, the ancillary issues regarding the terms of rehabilitation of the residents during the period of demolition and reconstruction of the Signature View Apartments.
Overview of the matter:
19. A residential complex, i.e., Signature View Apartments, was developed by the DDA over a plot of land measuring 2.83 ha of land. The DDA sold 336 flats through registered conveyance deeds at different points of time, under the housing schemes of the year 2010, 2014 and 2017. The said residential complex comprises of 12 towers of which 10 towers are 10 storied plus stilt, and two towers are 6 storied, plus stilt.
20. There are 336 dwelling units which were constructed by the DDA on 2.16 ha of land, comprising of 224 HIG flats and 112 MIG flats. The DDA also constructed 144 stilt parking, which were also sold separately by way of registered conveyance deed to the respective HIG flat owners.
21. The remaining 0.67 ha of land was marked for commercial purposes, having ground plus three floors, as per the sanctioned plan of the DDA.
22. As per the Housing Schemes of 2010, 2014 and 2017, the DDA also undertook the obligation to maintain the building, and charged additional 15% of the construction amount, which is lying with the DDA.
23. As per the facts on record, in the first year of the allotment itself, i.e., in the year 2012, ceiling of the flats and the grid wash on the exterior walls, started to crumble and columns started developing cracks. Due to various complaints by the residents of the society, the DDA engaged the services of the NCCBM to undertake the work of assessment of the quality of grit wash and Reinforced Cement Concrete (RCC). The NCCBM by its report of the year 2015, suggested extensive repair work for prevention of corrosion, in the following manner:
xxx xxx xxx
5. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR BLOCK A, B & C
Based on these visual observations and subsequent test conducted, the following conclusions are being drawn:
i) Grit wash applied on the RCC members of the towers is found de-bonded at many locations. Although, at some places the grit wash seems to be intact, it may get de-bonded because of the expansion due to corrosion of reinforcements.
ii) Constant availability of water & oxygen has resulted in electrochemical corrosion. Due to increase in volume of steel in the cover zone, the grit wash is found de-bonded at many locations resulting in its loss of stability which is an alarming situation with regard to safety of the users. Since the grit wash applied on RCC is scattered in larger area any untoward incident/accident can occur.
iii) Grit wash applied on Masonry walls are found to be intact at most of the places in these towers.
iv) In view of above findings based on corrosion front, all the Dholpur grit wash applied on RCC surface as subsequent application shall be removed completely.
v) After removal of grit wash, since the corrosion has been initiated at some places, it has become essential to arrest the corrosion by: carrying out extensive repair using following procedure:
* All cracked and loose concrete from the columns and beams shall be chipped off. Checking of loose concrete can be done by striking the doubtful surfaces with 2 lb hammer.
* All loose scale and rust around the rebar shall be removed by thoroughly cleaning them with steel wire brush or water jet or sand blasting or by scratching the surfaces using suitable emery paper.
* Additional stirrups bars of an equivalent diameter shall be provided to compensate the complete loss of such stirrups in case of beams. Additional steel bar shall also be provided if reduction in bar dia is more than 10% with laps or welding.
* A bonding coat of SBR polymer modified cement slurry in proportions 2:1 (2 cement 1 polymer) shall be applied on the old prepared surfaces of concrete, derusted bars and on additional bars. Such bonding coat shall not be allowed to dry before application of new concrete.
* The surface should be made good using Polymer Modified Mortar having a ratio of 1 Cement: 3 Coarse Sand with addition of latex @ 15% by weight of cement and having w/c ratio of 0.33.
* The repaired surface shall be further applied with appropriate protective coating to arrest further ingress of water and other harmful ingredients into the concrete.
* To carry out the repair work effectively in the damaged cover portion obtained after the removal of grit wash, we have finalized the description of items of repair as per Annexure A.
* The recommendations on the manufacturers & suppliers of the bond coat, anti corrosive treatment including corrosion inhibitor are given in Annexure B.
* Only approved brand qualifying the requirements of specifications shall be used at site. During the execution of the major repair/restoration work, suitable Non Destructive Testing shall be carried out to fulfill the quality criteria in the different blocks by independent testing agency.
* Based on the visual inspection done at few panels, grit wash applied on flyash brick masonry is found debonded in some locations of Blocks A, B & C. Also based on the survey carried out by visual inspection & by using light hammering technique, pebbles are found to be loosely bonded. Samples of cores taken randomly at few locations have indicated no loss of bonding between raw fly ash brick masonry and the layer of mortar. The bonding though found intact, it is found to be ineffective in providing durability to the pebbles of grit wash. So the only remedy to support the stability & integrity of the grit wash is to remove entire grit wash. Care should be taken not to remove all the plaster behind the grit wash.
xxx xxx xxx
5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on these visual observations and subsequent test conducted, the following conclusions are being drawn:
i) Grit wash applied on the RCC members of the towers is found de-bonded at many locations. Although, at some places the grit wash seems to be intact, it may get de-bonded because of the expansion due to corrosion of reinforcements.
ii) Constant availability of water & oxygen has resulted in electrochemical corrosion. Due to increase in volume of steel in the cover zone, the grit wash is found de-bonded at many locations resulting in its loss of Stability which is an alarming situation with regard to safety of the users. Since the grit wash applied on RCC is scattered in larger area any untoward incident/accident can occur.
iii) Grit wash applied on Masonry walls are found to be intact at most of the places in these towers.
iv) In view of above findings based on corrosion front, all the Dholpur grit wash applied on RCC surface as subsequent application shall be removed completely.
v) After removal of grit wash, since the corrosion has been initiated at some places, it has become essential to arrest the corrosion by carrying out extensive repair using following procedure:
* All cracked and loose concrete from the columns and beams shall be chipped off. Checking of loose concrete can be done by striking the doubtful surfaces with 2 lb hammer.
* All loose scale and rust around the rebar shall be removed by thoroughly cleaning them with steel wire brush or water jet or sand blasting or by scratching the surfaces using suitable emery paper.
* Additional stirrups bars of an equivalent diameter shall be provided to compensate the complete loss of such stirrups in case of beams. Additional steel bar shall also be provided if reduction in bar dia is more than 10% with laps or welding.
* A bonding coat of SBR polymer modified cement slurry in proportions 2:1 (2 cement: 1 polymer) shall be applied on the old prepared surfaces of concrete, derusted bars and on additional bars. Such bonding coat shall not be allowed to dry before application of new concrete.
* The surface should be made good using Polymer Modified Mortar having a ratio of 1 Cement: 3 Coarse Sand with addition of latex @ 15% by weight of cement and having w/c ratio of 0.33.
* The repaired surface shall be further applied with appropriate protective coating to arrest further ingress of water and other harmful ingredients into the concrete.
* To carry out the repair work effectively in the damaged cover portion obtained after the removal of grit wash, we have finalized the description of items of repair as per Annexure A.
* The recommendations on the manufacturers & suppliers of the bond coat, anti corrosive treatment including corrosion inhibitor are given in Annexure B.
* Only approved brand qualifying the requirements of specifications shall be used at site. During the execution of the major repair/restoration work, suitable Non Destructive Testing shall be carried out to fulfill the quality criteria in the different blocks by independent testing agency.
* Based on the visual inspection done at few panels, grit wash applied on flyash brick masonry is found debonded in some locations of Blocks A, B & C. Also based on the survey carried out by visual inspection & by using light hammering technique, pebbles are found to be loosely bonded. Samples of cores taken randomly at few locations have indicated no loss of bonding between raw fly ash brick masonry and the layer of mortar. The bonding though found intact, it is found to be ineffective in providing durability to the pebbles of grit wash. So the only remedy to support the stability & integrity of the grit wash is to remove entire grit wash. Care should be taken not to remove all the plaster behind the grit wash.
xxx xxx xxx
(Emphasis Supplied)
24. However, the repair work carried out by the DDA in the year 2015, could not prevent further corrosion, due to which the problem got aggravated inter alia of cracks in the column, pillar, beam and ceiling, including, the deep cracks on the outer facade leading to the fall of ceiling and big lumps of concrete endangering the life and property of the residents.
25. Thus, the DDA again approached the NCCBM to advice them in this regard. The NCCBM, after its preliminary site visit, in its letter dated 18th February, 2019, observed distress in terms of cracks and spalling of cover concrete and corrosion of reinforcements in different RCC members. The NCCBM also opined to get the detailed structural evaluation to be done by a structural design expert. The letter dated 18th February, 2019 issued by the NCCBM reads as under:
Sh Nimesh Kumar
Executive Engineer
Delhi Development Authority
North Division 1, near TV Tower
Pitampura, Delhi-34
Email: ecndldda@gmail.com
Sub: First hand report based on preliminary site visit to Signature View Apartments at Mukherjee Nagar Delhi
Dear Sir
This has reference to preliminary visit carried out by Sh. TVG Reddy, GM along with Sh. Ankit Sharma, PE on 22nd October, 2018.
Signature View Apartments at Mukherjee Nagar consist of 12 blocks, each having stilt floor. Distress in terms of cracks and spalling of cover concrete & corrosion of reinforcement has been noticed in different RCC members during our site visit. At few locations seepage signs were also observed on the walls & RCC members of the building. Cracking & Spalling of concrete and corrosion of reinforcement was visually observed in the RCC slab of flat D103. Debonding of plaster from the RCC Slab was observed in flat D603. Spalling of concrete and corrosion of reinforcement was observed in RCC slab of flat 1703. Prima facie it seems that the distress in the building is mainly caused due to corrosion of reinforcement.
By considering the distress of the blocks and existence of stilt floor, it is opined that detailed structural evaluation shall be done by structural design expert duly taking into consideration of actual concrete strength and existing reinforcement condition. Then only repair methodology shall be prepared and executed accordingly.
At present to avoid any untoward incident, a small isolated concrete spalling locations patch repair shall be done as given in Annexure-I which is purely for temporary purpose till the final repair has to be done. It is also advised final repair shall be done as early as possible.
Thanking You
Yours Faithfully
For National Council for Cement and Building Materials
xxx x