White Orchid Apartment Owners Association v. State Of Uttar Pradesh And 3 Others

respondents and Ms. Anjali Upadhya, learned counsel for Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority (in short "GNIDA").

2. The instant writ petition has been preferred for a direction to respondent no.2 (GNIDA) to forthwith demolish and remove the illegal iron staircase and permanently close/ seal the illegal/ door opened from Flat No.101, Tower 2, White Orchid Society and to ensure safety and security of the residents; for a direction to respondent no.2 to ensure restoration of original structure of Flat No.101, Tower 2 by removing all illegal alterations and modifications to ensure the structural integrity and safety of the entire Tower 2 and for a further direction to respondent no.2 to declare as null and void any purported right or title created by respondent no.3 in favour of respondent no.4 over the common roof area of Tower 2, admeasuring approx. 3000 sq. ft.

3. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner states that the petitioner is the registered Apartment Owners Association (AOA) of the "White Orchid Society" established under the Uttar Pradesh Apartment (Promotion of Construction, Ownership and Maintenance) Act, 2010 and is responsible for the maintenance and welfare of the residents of the society. The GNIDA is the statutory body responsible for planned development and for ensuring all constructions adhere to the sanctioned building plans and bye-laws within its jurisdiction. The respondent no.3 is the builder, who constructed the society and respondent no.4 is the owner of Flat No.101, Tower 2. The respondent no.3-the builder constructed the "White Orchid Society" in Greater Noida. The layout and building plans for the society were sanctioned by respondent no.2-Authority.

4. It is alleged that, in a blatant violation of sanctioned map, the respondent no.3 constructed an illegal iron staircase leading from the ground floor market area (White Orchid Arcade) to the common roof of Tower 2. This staircase does not exist in any sanctioned plan and has been built illegally. It is submitted that initially the iron staircase was built by the builder as a temporary structure to reach its office at Flat No.101, but after sale of Flat No.101 to respondent no.4, the builder and respondent no.4, in collusion with each other, did not remove the temporary staircase and instead fortified it for illegal entry in flat no.101. The respondent no.3-builder, in collusion with respondent no.4, has illegally gave the said illegal staircase and the entire common roof area of Tower 2, admeasuring approximately 3000 sq. fit, for the exclusive use of respondent no.4. The common area is the collective property of all apartment owners of the society under the U.P. Apartment Act, 2010 and cannot be transferred or appropriated by the builder or any individual owner. To facilitate this illegal appropriation, the respondent no.4 has illegally opened a new gate/ door from his Flat No.101 towards the common roof, thereby connecting his flat directly to the illegal staircase.

5. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, in support of his submissions, has placed reliance on the notice/order dated

14.02.2025 under Section 10 of the U.P. Industrial Area Development Act, 1976 (in short "Act, 1976"), whereby the respondent no.3-builder was directed by GNIDA to remove the illegal construction as well as the staircase, which has been installed contrary to the provisions of the Act, 1976. He submits that the Act, 1976 is self-contained Act in which exhaustive procedure is provided, whereby the Authority has to take necessary action qua the illegal construction contrary to approved plan. He submits that GNIDA has rightly proceeded in the instant matter and direction may be issued to the GNIDA to take final decision in response to the said notice.

6. The relief, as has been prayed for, is resisted by learned counsel for GNIDA. She fairly states that the GNIDA has been created to ensure planned development in its territorial jurisdiction in consonance with the plan/ master plan approved by the GNIDA. Once it has been found that there was certain illegal construction/ staircase installed contrary to the plan, accordingly notice has been issued. But at the same time she fairly concedes about the ongoing civil proceeding pending between the parties. She submits that respondent no.4 had also preferred Original Suit No.1213 of 2023 (Dr. Pooja Chaudhary v. Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority) before the Civil Judge (S.D.), Gautam Budh Nagar in which, while issuing notices to the opposite party, status quo order has been passed in favour of the plaintiff (respondent no.4). She fairly states that, at this stage, she has no information whether in the said suit proceeding the Authority had filed its written statement or not. She submits that once the competent civil court had already accorded interim injunction in favour of respondent no.4, the Authority is not in a position to flout the said injunction. She also apprises to the Court that nothing is brought on record to indicate whether the petitioner was aggrieved with the ongoing suit proceeding before the competent civil court or it had ever moved any impleadment application in the said proceeding. In case the petitioner is aggrieved, it should file impleadment application in the ongoing suit proceeding and definitely the Authority would also file written statement in the suit proceeding in the light of the provisions under the Act, 1976.

7. Considering the factual situation as well as the injunction so accorded in the aforesaid suit proceeding, we are not inclined to proceed further in the matter at this stage. However, it is expected from the GNIDA to file written statement in the pending suit proceeding expeditiously and take objection on the basis of the provisions of the Act, 1976. We also leave it open to the petitioner to be impleaded in the said suit proceeding.

8. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands disposed of. Order Date :- 11.8.2025 SP/ SURYA PRAKASH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad