[Resolved] Municipal Corporation Of Delhi — Unauthorised Construction on Terrace of DDA flats Neeti Bagh | |
2nd floor residents of SFS DDA flats Niti bagh have carried out unauthorised construction on the terraces, which is supposed to be common usage area for all the floor residents. The top floor residents have encroached upon the common terrace rights by preventing access to other residents on the terrace even for their over head water tanks. Most of the residents have constructed another floor on the terrance adding burden to the overall structure of the building either for sel[censored]se or letting it out. It seems that these constructions have been carried out in conviance with police and MCD officials as no action has been taken against these unauthorised constructions done by the residents. Additionally, some residents on the first and the second floor have also altered the original structure by constructing extended balconies and toilets with the support of pillars, which are 3-5 ft outside the flat area thus posing threat to the people residing below or walking through the bylanes. Some of the details are as follows: Flat no - 10 - removed original walls by constructing extended balcony on pillars, outside by 3-5 ft Flat no - 24 - access not given to other residents on the terrace - 2 room set with toilet on the terrace Flat no - 12 - access not given to other residents on the terrace and rooms constructed on terrace. Original walls removed with extending walls outside by 3-5 ft Flat no - 27 - altered original structure by removing original walls and constructing balcony and toilet by extending on pillars. Also created a underground water tank in the scooter garrage thus posing threat to the foundation of the bulding structure. Flat no - 29 - access not given to other residents on the terrace - 3 room set with toilet on the terrace Flat no - 30 - access not given to other residents on the terrace - 2 rooms on the terrace Flat no - 34 - altered original structure by removing original walls and extending the kitchen and rooms outside by 3-5 ft Flat no - 36 - access not given to other residents on the terrace rooms constructed on the terrace. Original walls removed with extending walls outside by 3-5 ft Immediate action should be taken against the residents who have encroached upon the terrace constructing another floor on the top which has also weakened the entire building structure. tnx Shubham Was this information helpful? | |
Aug 14, 2020 Complaint marked as Resolved | |
 4 Comments | |
Comments
The complaint is incomplete.They did not mention about the encroachment of GF owner.Flat no.25 and 32 blocked the common passage and flat no.26 and 33 blocked the common passage.Moreover the MCD demolished the encroachment of flat no.26 but itis again built under the supervision of MCD staff itself.
Mr marwah seems to be biased against top floors. Can he clarifies who takes care of maintenance of terrace from seepage, heat etc? At that time onlt top floor maintains that . Moreover with just an overhead tank placement, do all other 3 floors really need access every day, no not really for months except cleaning of tanks once in a year or so. does any top floor person does not allow others for that ? I believe no.
It is genrally a practice for other floor owners to have prejuduces and biased and jealous attitude as written by Sh. Marwah. One room adjoining Mumty can not effect the structure as clarified by registered architects and structural engineers if constructed immediate above the lower walls.
It is genrally a practice for other floor owners to have prejuduces and biased and jealous attitude as written by Sh. Marwah. One room adjoining Mumty can not effect the structure as clarified by registered architects and structural engineers if constructed immediate above the lower walls.
Mr Raj has explicitly displayed his greed for an additional floor or room. What he fails to mention or respond is that is there any provision under law where his title deed of the DDA flat which mentions xxx sq ft be increased to yyyy sq ft ?
What maintenance does the top floor resident do ?? Who tasked him ? Why did he not share the responsibility with the co residents ?
Common space is common space for everyone whether the children fly kites or any resident want to enjoy the view or the weather or even socialize. Its there for all the residents, it nor specified anywhere who it belongs to !. IF it was desired to be allotted or given to any resident the same would have been mentioned / endorsed in their title deed and they would have paid for it.
DDA has never ever allotted or given roof terrace or terrace rights to anyone till date, that explains the purpose and intent.
With HIS logic the prices in the market for top floor flats should be more since, as per Mr Raj, they can make more rooms. Then why are first and second floor flats more expensive ? If any residents desires more space then he must muster up the courage and resources to purchase a flat of larger floor area and not cheat or steal. This unauthorised construction tantamount to theft. Failing which one must learn to live within his or her means.
Further more :-
Where did he get the additional floor area ? Who allotted it ? Is there an allotment letter ?
People like him do not understand public space and common areas. Which is why slums exists, they encroach upon common space and public areas with impunity. This is the mindset of a slum dweller who encroaches on public and common space, even he feels what harm will a small room on the pavements do to the public.
Its not bias, these are FACTS, indisputable facts.
The inherent greed of top floor flat owners is evident by this response, why should the privilege to occupy the roof terrace be given to the top floor owner when he pays the least value for the flat, and then wants to usurp the top floor, increase the floor area. Do the top floor owners pay the market rate to DDA and get a title deed for the extra floor area ? Absolutely not ?
What maintenance does the top floor resident do ?? Who tasked him ? Why did he not share the responsibility with the co residents ?
Common space is common space for everyone whether the children fly kites or any resident want to enjoy the view or the weather or even socialize. Its there for all the residents, it nor specified anywhere who it belongs to !. IF it was desired to be allotted or given to any resident the same would have been mentioned / endorsed in their title deed and they would have paid for it.
DDA has never ever allotted or given roof terrace or terrace rights to anyone till date, that explains the purpose and intent.
With HIS logic the prices in the market for top floor flats should be more since, as per Mr Raj, they can make more rooms. Then why are first and second floor flats more expensive ? If any residents desires more space then he must muster up the courage and resources to purchase a flat of larger floor area and not cheat or steal. This unauthorised construction tantamount to theft. Failing which one must learn to live within his or her means.
Further more :-
Where did he get the additional floor area ? Who allotted it ? Is there an allotment letter ?
People like him do not understand public space and common areas. Which is why slums exists, they encroach upon common space and public areas with impunity. This is the mindset of a slum dweller who encroaches on public and common space, even he feels what harm will a small room on the pavements do to the public.
Its not bias, these are FACTS, indisputable facts.
The inherent greed of top floor flat owners is evident by this response, why should the privilege to occupy the roof terrace be given to the top floor owner when he pays the least value for the flat, and then wants to usurp the top floor, increase the floor area. Do the top floor owners pay the market rate to DDA and get a title deed for the extra floor area ? Absolutely not ?
Customer satisfaction rating Customer satisfaction rating is a complex algorithm that helps our users determine how good
a company is at responding and resolving complaints by granting from 1 to 5 stars for each
complaint and then ultimately combining them all for an overall score.
Read more
Read more
11%
Complaints
12476
Pending
0
Resolved
1409
+91 11 2652 2700
Dr. S.P.M. Civic Centre, Minto Road, New Delhi, Delhi, India - 100002
There are two stories or versions to what is happening in DDA Flats in Delhi
MCD Version :
Addition Alteration is alllowed as per the DDA handbook.
Top floor allottees have absolute ownership to the roof terrace (This is BS and an independent opinion not the official version)
One room on roof terrace is permitted adjoining the mumty and wall over wall alignment must be maintained. (BS again)
Existing structure can be regularised by paying the penalty and submitting the right forms, plan duly approved by an architect etc.
FACTS:
1. Roof terraces are common spaces as defined by the MoUD to the parliament when the issue was raised during the Delhi Apartment Owners Bill
2. The DDA handbook allows for addition / alteration for increase in COVERED area, but the process o[censored]surping the space on the roof terraces is an INCREASE IN THE PLINTH AREA of the top floor allottee. THE PLINTH AREA (as recorded in the title/sale/lease/registry deed as thats what one has paid for.) CANNOT BE INCREASED.
3. The documents that MCD accepts for regularisation and increase in covered area must have the copy of the ownership/title/registry/lease deed where the plinth area and the owner of the plinth area is recorded. Therefore the top floor allotttee cannot put his name on the BLUE PRINTS or PLAN submitted for the additional room to the MCD as the title deed does not show his name as the owner of the roof terrace.
4. MCD is to scrutinise the ownership of the floor / plinth where additional coverage is sought for. WHICH IT DOES NOT. Once the MCD stamps the PLAN with the top floor owners name on it, it has broken rules and violated laws to favour a specific resident. The resident (top floor) uses it to stake claim on the terrace and then suo moto prevents other residents to access the roof by using force, privacy women etc etc.
5. The Architect approving the plan only verifies the design and structure to be made and not the ownership of the roof terrace. The structural engineer who has to provide a certificate is generally a bogus person whom you cannot trace or take to task. Council of Arch and similar institution for Engineers does not have a readily accessible database on the web for public viewing and verification.
6. The money that is deposited to the MCD @ Rs 450/sqmtr is for the increase in the covered area as a development fee for the additional load on utilities such as water sewage etc AND NOT THE COST OF LAND. Land in delhi in DDA flats is close to Rs 2000 to Rs 3000 per sqft moreover a particular resident cannot be favoured in a vertical stack to build a room.
7. The bye laws have changed to allow a room on the roof terrace, then the bye laws were amended to take up the building height to 15 mtrs, once more such amendments are made the top floor owner who pays the least for the flat usurps the roof and double his covered area much to the amusement and silent spectators of the other residents in the same vertical stack.
Laslty these facts need to be spelt out to all residents in the DDA colony as most are unaware and permit such constructions. The roof is equal property of all residents in the DDA Colony.
The interpretation of the ADDITION ALTERATION IN DDA FLATS need to be read in a sequence and not just one para out of the whole. IF you need help in understanding and explaining that to others feel free to contact me.
my email is parminder.[protected]@gmail.com
If you need help contact me.