Gaping holes in Lucknow’s building safety initiative?

LUCKNOW A deadly building collapse in the city two years ago and the recent Delhi incident have put the spotlight back on a question that continues to haunt Lucknow: what happens to safety rules after authorities announce them? The September 2024 Transport Nagar building collapse, which killed eight people and injured around 28, prompted the Lucknow Development Authority (LDA) to strengthen its building regulations and make structural audits mandatory for buildings more than 30 years old.

But many LDA officials in Lucknow’s enforcement zones said they were unaware of any sustained structural audit drive.

The apparent disconnect was significant because LDA claimed that it prepared a list of 160 properties for structural audits and shared it with officials concerned. However, officials working at the ground level said they had either not received orders or had not seen buildings undergoing such audits.

The development raised concerns over whether Lucknow’s safety measures post-Transport Nagar incident had moved beyond official files and actually reached vulnerable buildings.

The Transport Nagar tragedy in September 2024 became a major turning point for building safety in Lucknow, prompting authorities to examine the condition of ageing and potentially unsafe structures across the city.

The LDA introduced provisions in its revised building bylaws making structural audits mandatory for buildings more than 30 years old.

The authority planned to extend the exercise to high-rise buildings as well. In July 2025, LDA officials said structural audits would be made mandatory for government and privately constructed high-rise buildings, particularly those more than 10 years old.

The LDA also identified ageing buildings such as Vikasdeep and Brahmkunj for priority inspections and then planned to conduct the exercise through empanelled structural audit agencies. The authority even got the structural audit decision approved through its board, making it part of the regulatory framework.

Yet, more than a year later, questions remain over implementation.

An LDA zonal officer told HT that no order had been issued to conduct a structural audit of any building in the zone under his charge during the past year.

The officer said the executive engineer, who holds financial powers, plays an important role in initiating the process and that zonal officials can act only after receiving the necessary directions.

Another LDA zonal officer, Prabhakar Singh, who held charge of two zones for around a year, said he did not remember any building or property undergoing a structural audit during his tenure.

LDA chief engineer Manvendra Singh also told HT that he was currently unaware of any ongoing structural audit drive, adding that he was not present when the decision was approved.

LDA assistant town planner Sanket Vats said he had not seen any structure undergoing a structural audit during his tenure either.

The statements were significant because the LDA’s senior leadership maintained that the process had already begun.

LDA vice-chairman Prathamesh Kumar told HT on Friday that the authority prepared a list of 160 properties and shared it with the officials concerned.

The apparent contradiction between the authority’s claim and the awareness of field officials raises questions over the monitoring mechanism adopted to ensure that identified properties actually undergo structural audits.

The Delhi collapse also prompted the Lucknow Municipal Corporation (LMC) to revisit properties that it had already identified as unsafe.

Municipal commissioner Gaurav Kumar said the civic body issued fresh and revised notices to owners of properties marked as unsafe after officials reviewed the matter in a meeting.

The owners had been given a stipulated period to undertake repair work. Kumar said the LMC would prepare a revised list of properties whose owners failed to comply with the notices and forward the cases to the competent authority for further action.

However, the LMC had limited powers in such cases. It could identify unsafe properties and issue notices, but it did not have authority to demolish such buildings. Depending on the jurisdiction, cases had to be referred to the LDA or the UP Housing and Development Board.

LDA officials said once cases involving unsafe properties reach the authority, officials would examine the building for violations of the sanctioned plan and other provisions of the building bylaws.

Where required, the owner could be directed to conduct a structural audit before the authority decided on further action.

LDA executive engineer Nishant Kumar said while he was posted in Zone 4, he had identified an unsafe building and planned to conduct its structural audit. However, he was transferred to another zone before the process could move ahead.