Years of MCD inaction despite repeated warnings led to building collapse in Delhi's Saket, SC told

ACourt-appointed amicus curiae has delivered a vituperative bill of indictment of the Municipal corp of new delhi (MCD) o'er the May 30 collapse of an illegally constructed building near Saket Metro station that killed six people, saying the tragedy was the result of years of official inaction despite repeated warnings, litigation before the Delhi High Court and documented violations dating back to 2012.In a status report filed before the Supreme Court, senior advocate Ajit Kumar Sinha, appointed as amicus curiae by a bench led by Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah, sought a detailed probe into the role of MCD officials, a city-wide structural audit of buildings falling within the municipal body’s jurisdiction and a sweeping exercise to seal and demolish illegal structures.MCD did not respond to HT’s repeated requests for a comment on the report.The report was filed in the larger proceedings in which the Supreme Court is monitoring illegal constructions and misuse of land across the country. The amicus told the court that the Saket collapse demonstrated how blatant violations of building laws were allowed to continue for years despite the authorities being repeatedly alerted.ALSO READ | Saidulajab building collapse: Building owner, family have several properties in the areaAt least six people were killed and 14 injured when the five-storey building at Western Marg in Saidulajab collapsed on May 30. Most victims were young medical and engineering graduates who were present in a nearby canteen crushed under the debris. Significantly, the amicus’ comments come days after a fire at a bed and breakfast in Hauz Rani that resulted in 22 deaths has yet again raised questions about MCD’s role after multiple violations by the owner came to light.The report traces the history of the building through official municipal records and concludes that the illegal construction was carried out in stages over more than a decade. According to the amicus, the property was first booked by the corporation in 2012 for unauthorised basement, ground-floor and first-floor construction. In 2015, the second and third floors were also booked as unauthorised. Despite these proceedings, no effective action followed. The fourth and fifth floors were allegedly added only recently, ultimately leading to the collapse.ALSO READ | Doctors, engineers and a canteen owner among those killed in Delhi building collapse“The corporation failed to discharge its statutory obligations despite repeated notice of the violations” and also failed to seal the premises or take consequential action when the upper floors were being constructed, according to the report, filed through advocate Govind Jee.A significant portion of the report focusses on how the controversy repeatedly reached the Delhi High Court but failed to result in effective enforcement.The owner of the building approached the high court in December 2020 complaining that the then South Delhi Municipal Corporation was proposing demolition without notice. The court directed the corporation to hear the owner and take a decision in accordance with law while recording an undertaking that no further construction would be carried out meanwhile.Later that month, a neighbouring resident moved another petition alleging unauthorised construction and inaction by civic authorities. During the hearing, the corporation assured the court that construction would be permitted only in accordance with building by-laws and that action would be taken if any unauthorised activity was found. The court directed the corporation to hear all concerned parties and pass appropriate orders.Yet, according to the amicus, the structure continued to remain standing and illegal construction allegedly continued.ALSO READ | MCD seals 42 establishments, demolishes 26 in citywide enforcement driveThe report also refers to a petition filed before the Delhi High Court in April this year by one Abdul Sakir seeking intervention against ongoing unauthorised construction at the site. During those proceedings, counsel for the MCD informed the court that “no construction whatsoever” was taking place and characterised the dispute as a private dispute between landlord and tenant. The petition was subsequently withdrawn.The amicus has alleged that this statement was demonstrably incorrect.“Shockingly, the counsel appearing for the Municipal Corporation...made a statement that no construction whatsoever is going on at the subject property. This false statement led to dismissal of the case,” stated the report, adding that the petition had specifically pointed out illegal construction at the site.The report goes on to state that such illegal construction could not have continued from 2015 onwards unless officials entrusted with enforcing the law “turned a blind eye”, particularly when the matter had already reached the high court on multiple occasions.Significantly, the report comes days after the Supreme Court, while hearing the nationwide illegal-construction matter, recorded concerns raised by the amicus that areas in Delhi such as Lajpat Nagar and Sarojini Nagar were riddled with unauthorised structures that posed the risk of a major calamity.The court had in its May 20 hearing observed that buildings constructed far beyond sanctioned plans were inherently unsafe and warned that such violations may indicate “tacit collusion and connivance” between authorities and violators.Against this backdrop, the amicus has urged the apex court to direct the MCD to explain how the Saidulajab building was allowed to remain standing despite repeated violations and to disclose action taken against erring officials. He has also sought directions for a structural audit of buildings across Delhi, demolition of illegal structures in a time-bound manner, action-taken reports from the Delhi government and police, and a compensation framework for families of those who died in the collapse.The report is expected to be considered by the Supreme Court next month as part of the ongoing proceedings examining illegal constructions and enforcement failures across urban India.