Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

19. The judicial precedents have repeatedly declared a zero tolerance policy for unauthorized construction. In Rajendra Kumar Barjatya v. U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad3, for example, the Court insisted that any construction contravening the approved plan has to be curtailed and warned that delay or laxity by authorities cannot be used as a shield to justify illegality. The relevant excerpts are produced below:

"In the ultimate analysis, we are of the opinion that construction(s) put up in violation of or deviation from the building plan approved by the local authority and the constructions which are audaciously put up without any 2024 INSC 990 Page 10 Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK building planning approval, cannot be encouraged. Each and every construction must be made scrupulously following and strictly adhering to the Rules. In the event of any violation being brought to the notice of the Courts, it has to be curtailed with iron hands and any lenience afforded to them would amount to showing misplaced sympathy. Delay in directing rectification of illegalities, administrative failure, regulatory inefficiency, cost of construction and investment, negligence and laxity on the part of the authorities concerned in performing their obligation(s) under the Act, cannot be used as a shield to defend action taken against the illegal/unauthorized constructions."
Page 13 Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
(i) a duly sanctioned building plan,
(ii) a completion and/or occupancy certificate,
(iii) a valid fire safety No-Objection Certificate, and
(iv) all statutory environmental clearances, wherever applicable.
c) If any portion of the building is found to be unauthorized, deviated from the sanctioned plan, or lacking statutory approvals, the CMC shall immediately initiate proceedings in accordance with law, including: