For nearly a decade, over 1,600 homes and 200 commercial shops in Naroda, a developing area of Ahmedabad, have existed without a crucial Building Use (BU) permission. The revelation has raised serious questions about the functioning of the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation (AMC) and its relationship with real estate builders. The issue not only exposes gaps in urban governance but also highlights the challenges faced by ordinary residents who are unknowingly living in properties that are technically illegal.
What is BU Permission and Why It Matters
Building Use permission is an essential clearance granted by municipal authorities once a construction project meets all approved safety, structural, and environmental norms. In simple terms, it is a green signal that ensures a building is safe for occupation. Without BU approval, residents are at risk of living in unsafe structures, and utilities like water and drainage connections can legally be denied.
However, in the case of Naroda, thousands of people have been living and running their businesses for ten years without such approval. The fact that these buildings continue to operate raises a major concern: how did so many projects go unchecked for so long?
The Emerging Controversy
The issue came to light when recent civic inspections and RTI (Right to Information) responses revealed that at least 25 residential and mixed-use projects in the Naroda zone have no BU permission, even though they were completed between 2014 and 2016. Many residents claim they were never informed about the lack of clearance when they purchased their properties.
This has fueled allegations that some builders, in collusion with AMC officials, managed to bypass crucial approval stages. The delay or denial of BU permissions in such large numbers cannot be explained as administrative negligence alone; it hints at a deeper system of unofficial understanding between developers and regulators.
Residents Left in Uncertainty
For residents, the situation is both distressing and unfair. Most buyers trusted the builders, assuming that all formalities were in place. Many have been living in these homes for years, paying property tax, water charges, and electricity bills—ironically to the same civic body that never approved their buildings for use.
A resident from one of the affected societies shared that their housing project was completed in 2015, and they received possession soon after. The builder assured them that BU permission would be issued “in a few months.” Nearly ten years later, nothing has changed. Meanwhile, the same builder has launched new projects elsewhere in the city, allegedly with the same pattern of delayed approvals.
AMC’s Role Under Question
The AMC, which is responsible for enforcing building regulations and issuing BU permissions, is now under pressure to explain how these structures were occupied without clearance. Experts point out that the civic body cannot claim ignorance, as property tax assessments and utility connections are only possible when the buildings are physically verified.
If AMC knew these projects lacked BU approval, why were services continued for so long? This question strikes at the heart of governance accountability. Either the system was compromised, or there was deliberate oversight in exchange for unofficial benefits. Both possibilities raise serious ethical and administrative concerns.
Builders Defend Themselves
On the other side, some builders argue that the delay in BU approval is not entirely their fault. They claim that AMC often takes years to inspect and verify documents even after developers submit everything correctly. In some cases, pending issues such as road widening, incomplete drainage networks, or disputes between departments have caused the process to stall.
However, critics say that such arguments are convenient cover-ups. Builders are legally not allowed to hand over possession or sell flats until BU permission is granted. Doing so is a violation of the Gujarat Provincial Municipal Corporations Act and the Gujarat Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) norms.
Legal Implications and Possible Action
The absence of BU permission does not just make the buildings illegal; it also exposes residents to potential legal and financial risk. For instance, such properties cannot be easily mortgaged or resold. In case of any structural failure or accident, insurance claims may also be denied, as the property does not have legal occupancy status.
There are growing calls for an investigation into how AMC and builders allowed this situation to persist for a decade. Civic activists have demanded that the state government form a special inquiry committee to identify responsible officials and take corrective measures.
If proven, the AMC-builder nexus could amount to serious corruption and administrative negligence. It could also trigger a wave of lawsuits from affected residents seeking compensation for mental distress and financial losses.
Political Reactions and Public Outrage
The controversy has quickly turned into a political issue. Opposition parties in Ahmedabad have accused the ruling establishment of protecting builders and ignoring the plight of ordinary citizens. They argue that AMC’s building permission system has become a hub of bribery and favoritism, where officials turn a blind eye to violations in exchange for personal gain.
Civic watchdog groups have also pointed out that this is not the first time such irregularities have surfaced. Similar issues were reported earlier in areas like Nikol and Bapunagar, suggesting a pattern that goes beyond isolated incidents.
Urban Growth vs. Urban Governance
Naroda is one of Ahmedabad’s fastest-growing zones, attracting thousands of middle-class homebuyers due to affordable housing and new infrastructure. However, this case highlights the dark side of rapid urban expansion without adequate regulatory oversight.
When civic authorities fail to enforce building norms, it not only compromises safety but also erodes public trust in the system. Urban governance must evolve with the pace of development; otherwise, such gaps between law and reality will continue to widen.
What Can Be Done Now
Experts suggest a few urgent steps to address this issue effectively:
- Regularization Drive:
AMC could consider a transparent, one-time regularization policy for buildings that meet safety standards but lack BU permissions. - Accountability Measures:
Officials responsible for approving and monitoring these projects should face departmental action. Builders who violated the law must be penalized under RERA. - Public Database:
There should be an online, easily accessible record where citizens can check BU status before purchasing any property. - Strict Enforcement:
Future projects should not be allowed to begin occupancy without digital verification of BU clearance. - Public Awareness:
Homebuyers must be educated about the importance of BU permission and the risks of ignoring it.
The Broader Message
The Naroda case is not just about one neighborhood or one set of builders. It reflects a larger problem across many Indian cities where rapid urbanization often outpaces governance mechanisms. Transparency, accountability, and ethical business practices must form the foundation of urban planning if cities are to grow sustainably.
Conclusion
The revelation that 1,600 homes and 200 shops in Naroda have been operating without BU permission for nearly a decade is more than a bureaucratic lapse it is a sign of systemic failure. It shows how ordinary citizens can become victims of negligence and corruption when regulatory checks weaken.