FRIENDS COLONY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE versus STATE OF ORISSA AND ORS.

Citation: [2004] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 818 · Decided: 01-11-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.C. LAHOTI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
FRIENDS COLONY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE 
v. 
ST A TE OF ORIS SA AND ORS. 
NOVEMBER l, 2004 
B 
[R.C. LAHOTI, CJ. AND ASHOK BHAN, J.] 
Urban Development: 
Unauthorised construction-Order for demolition of-Plea for 
C regularization by compounding-Held: Deviations from sanctioned plan 
permissible only as exception-Condonation and compounding of the 
deviations is permissible only when it is bona fide or are attributable to some 
misunderstanding and where the benefit gained by the demolition would be 
far less than the disadvantage suffered-Deliberate deviations not 
D compoundable-Deviations by professional builders can be assumed to be 
deliberate-Compounding of deviations made by the builders should be 
dealt with at a higher level by multi-membered High Powered Committee-
Staff strength to be suitably increased to keep constant and vigilant watch 
on illegal and unauthorized construction-Orissa Development Authorities 
Act. 
E 
Respondent Nos. 2 and 3, (a company engaged in building activities and 
its Managing Director) applied for construction of a multi-storeyed building 
to the Development Authority. The Authority sanctioned construction of a four 
storeyed building in accordance with the sanctioned building plans. The 
building was constructed in excess of the sanctioned plan on all the floors 
F and even a fifth floor was constructed. Authority initiated proceeding u/s 92 
ofOrissa Development Authorities Act, against the builder for demolition of 
the offending portions. Builder pleaded for compounding for the deviations. 
Appellant, a society whose object was to oversee the development of residential 
area in question made representation to the Authority, Municipality, Pollution 
G Control Board and the State Government complaining of the offending 
construction. Authority directed demolition of the fifth floor and the 
unauthorized projections on each r.aor. It permitted compounding in respect 
of certain deviations on payment of certain amourit by the builder. Builder 
filed an appeal before Appellate Authority which granted interim stay of 
H 
818 
-.., 
FRIENDS COLONY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE v. STA TE OF ORISSA. 
819 
demolition but on condition of stopping further construction. The builder A 
proceeded with building activity defying the condition. Appellant filed writ 
Petition before High Court. It also sought its impleadment in the appeal filed 
by the builder. Impleadment was allowed. Appellate Authority dismissed the 
appeal of the builder and the builder challenged it by filing Writ Petition, but 
without impleading the appellant. Appellant's application for impleadment in B 
the Writ Petition filed by the builder was rejected by High Court It disposed 
of the Writ Petition by directing that if the builder made a fresh application 
and/or submitted a revised plan for approval in respect of construction already 
undertaken by it, the Authority should deal with the same in accordance with 
law. Hence the appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, and remitting the matter to High Court for hearing C 
alongwith the Writ Petition filed by the appellant in the High Court, the Court 
HELD: 1. In the facts and circumstances of the present case the 
controversy should not have been brought to an end by the High Court merely 
by directing reconsideration of the application of revised building plans D 
submitted by the respondent builder. The matter needs a further probe and 
hearing in public interest. (830-D] 
2. Though the municipal laws permit deviations from sanctioned 
constructions being regularized by compounding but that is by way of 
exception. Unfortunately, the exception, with the lapse of time and frequent 
exercise of the discretionary power conferred by such exception, has become E 
the rule. Only such deviations deserve to be condoned. as are bona fide or are 
attributable to some mis-understanding or are such deviations as where the 
benefit gained by demolition would be far less than the disadvantage suffered. 
Other than these, deliberate deviations do not deserve to be condoned and 
compounded. Compounding of deviations ought to be kept at a bare minimum. F 
The cases of professional builders stand on a different footing from an 
individual constructing his own building. A professional builder is supposed 
to understand the laws better and deviations by such builders can safely be 
assumed to be deliberate and done with the intention of earning profits and 
hence deserve to be dealt with sternly so as 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.