Case at a Glance
Apartment owners of the Gulmohur Greens group housing project at Katori Mill, Mohan Nagar, Ghaziabad, challenged the Ghaziabad Development Authority’s third compounding of the project on 18 December 2024, which allowed two extra floors on four towers and two new towers without their consent. A Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court quashed it, held that common areas cannot be altered without the written consent of all apartment owners under the U.P. Apartment Act, 2010, found that GDA officers “colluded with the Promoter”, and ordered demolition of the 9th and 10th floors of Towers 16–19 and the whole of Towers 27 and 28 within two months. It imposed ₹25 lakh costs on the promoter, ordered refunds for common areas sold to 85 persons and directed an FIR and inquiries against officials.
The group housing scheme at Katori Mill, Mohan Nagar, Ghaziabad, was sanctioned on 29 May 2006 for 34 towers and 904 units; the builder, M/s S.V.P. Builders India Ltd., acted for the promoter. The map was cancelled on 3 July 2010 over a title dispute raised in respect of land claimed by the Hindon Air Base. GDA then allowed compounding on 15 November 2011, again on 13 January 2015, and a third time on 18 December 2024, which permitted two more floors on Towers 16 to 19 and two new towers, 27 and 28.
The residents’ welfare association had challenged the earlier approvals in 2015; in 2025 eleven apartment owners challenged the third compounding, seeking that no further approvals be issued without their consent under Section 5(3)(a) of the U.P. Apartment (Promotion of Construction, Ownership and Maintenance) Act, 2010. They also complained that common areas had been sold and that a 2018 criminal case had been closed without proper inquiry.
The Key Question Before the Court
Can a development authority repeatedly compound deviations in a housing project — adding floors and towers — without the consent of apartment owners and despite defects in the promoter’s title?
What the Court found
The Court upheld the petitioners’ locus and held that the building regulations and bye-laws require prior permission for deviations and do not permit repeated alterations. It found that about 4,560 sq m of land claimed by the Air Force had been wrongly included in FAR calculations, calling the promoter “guilty” and the authority “equally guilty” for sanctioning without verifying title, and held that a development authority “cannot legally sanction or compound a layout or building plan” where the applicant lacks valid title. It also found that the promoter had misrepresented a 2006 stay order. Relying on Supertech Ltd. v. Emerald Court Owner Resident Welfare Association, it treated apartment owners’ rights in common areas as decisive.
Under Section 5(3)(a) of the 2010 Act, undivided interests in common areas are permanent and cannot be altered without the written consent of all apartment owners and approval of the competent authority; the Court rejected the argument that consent is unnecessary when FAR is within limits. Selling common areas is prohibited by Section 5(4) and is an offence under Section 25. The Court found that GDA officers “colluded with the Promoter” in the second and third compounding and in transfers without a completion certificate. Since, per the Commission’s report, the apartments under the third compounding had not been sold and no third-party interests had been created, it ordered demolition.
What the Court Actually Held
- The third compounding of 18 December 2024 is quashed; GDA must demolish the 9th and 10th floors of Towers 16, 17, 18 and 19 and the whole of Towers 27 and 28 within two months, recovering the cost from the promoter as arrears of land revenue, with police and district administration assistance.
- Common areas cannot be altered or sold without the written consent of all apartment owners under Section 5 of the U.P. Apartment Act, 2010, even if FAR is available.
- The promoter must deposit ₹25 lakh costs in the residents’ welfare association’s account within one month; a three-member committee headed by the GDA Vice Chairman must identify common areas sold to 85 persons, restore them to the society, and the promoter must refund the price and construction cost with 10% interest within six months.
- An FIR against the promoter for fraud, misrepresentation and violations of the 2010 Act within two weeks; suspension and inquiry against a police inspector, inquiry against the officer who approved the 2018 final report, a disciplinary inquiry against the GDA Vice Chairman who approved the third compounding, and ₹50,000 costs to each petitioner; both writ petitions allowed.
Why This Judgment Matters
- It is a strong affirmation of apartment owners’ statutory control over common areas against builders and regulators.
- It shows courts will order demolition, not just fines, where illegal additions have not yet created third-party rights.
- It holds development authority officers personally accountable for collusive approvals.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?
For Homebuyers and RWAs
- Your consent is required before common areas are altered; challenge revised plans or compounding orders that bypass it.
- Act early — demolition was possible here because the new units had not yet been sold.
For Counsel
- Rely on Section 5(3)(a) and 5(4) of the U.P. Apartment Act, 2010 and Supertech Ltd. v. Emerald Court Owner Resident Welfare Association.
- Obtain the authority’s original files; internal notings proved the sale of common areas and the collusion here.
Key Takeaways
- Third compounding quashed; towers 27 and 28 to go.
- No alteration of common areas without all owners’ consent.
- ₹25 lakh costs and FIR against the promoter.
- Inquiries ordered against GDA and police officials.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can a builder add floors or towers after selling flats?
Not by altering common areas without the written consent of all apartment owners, the Allahabad High Court held under the U.P. Apartment Act, 2010, even if FAR is available.
Can a development authority regularise such additions by compounding?
The Court quashed the third compounding, holding that repeated alterations are not permitted and that an authority cannot sanction or compound plans where the applicant lacks valid title.
What happens to people who bought common areas from the builder?
A committee will identify the common areas sold to 85 persons and restore them to the society, and the promoter must refund the price and construction cost with 10% interest.
Conclusion
The Gulmohur Greens judgment is one of the sternest recent rulings on builder-authority collusion in Uttar Pradesh: demolition of unauthorised additions, heavy costs, refunds, an FIR and inquiries against officials. It puts the statutory rights of apartment owners at the centre of planning decisions.
Practical takeaway: RWAs should scrutinise every revised sanction or compounding order and challenge it promptly when common areas are touched without their consent.
Read the full judgment on CourtKutchehry: View judgment →
For more judgments, legal opinions and case analysis, visit courtkutchehry.com