Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(2) The Commissioner shall serve a copy of the provisional order made under sub-section (1) on the owner or the occupier of the building or well together with a notice requiring him to show cause within a reasonable time to be named in such notice why the order should not be confirmed.
(3) If the owner or the occupier fails to show cause to the satisfaction of the Commissioner, the Commissioner may confirm the order with any modifications he may think fit to make such order shall then be binding on the owner or the occupier. 8 On perusal of the aforestated provisions, it is evident that Section 56 of the T&P Act, 1971 read with Section 296 of the Coimbatore City Municipal Corporation Act, 1981 contemplate prior permission before commencement of construction. In the event there is slight deviation or modification, the owner of the building, who has obtained permission to commence construction, may make an application under the provisions of Section 56(1)(d)(ii) of the T&P Act, 1971. Sub Section (2-A) of Section 56 of T&P Act, 1971 provides that if the owner or occupier of the land or building has not been discontinued within the time specified, the appropriate planning authority may take action to discontinue the use of such land or building by locking and sealing the premises irrespective of pendency of any application under Section 49 or an appeal under Section 79 of T&P Act, 1971. Section 56(3) of T&P Act, 1971 provides that any person aggrieved by such notice may apply for permission under Section 49 of the T&P Act, 1971 for retention of the land or any building or works. All these provisions are applicable only in a case where there is slight modification or deviation in the building already constructed with prior permission of the competent authority under law.

x x x x x x x x x x x x

25.Though the municipal laws permit deviations from sanctioned constructions being regularised 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 the rule. Only such deviations deserve to be condoned as are bona fide or are attributable to some misunderstanding 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. 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 to act as a deterrent for future. It is common knowledge that the builders enter into underhand dealings. Be that as it may, the State Governments should think of levying heavy penalties on such builders and therefrom develop a welfare fund which can be utilised for compensating and rehabilitating such innocent or unwary buyers who are displaced on account of demolition of illegal constructions. 10 The Supreme Court in Shanti Sports Club Vs. Union of India2 observed that the executive must take stringent action to curtail the menace of illegal construction and it was held as under :