Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

2
The objection was that the Government accepted the remarks of the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority, in a routine manner.
As there was no oscope fo minimizing the deviations made in the then existing building, the rules in force were taken into account. The appeal was examined in detail by the Appeal Committee also adn final orders were issued rejecting the appeal on 19.02.1997. Hence, it is not correct to say that the proposal was gone through in a routine manner.
3
While disposing of the second appeal the reasons for rejection has been increased from 5 to 12 thereby 7 additional reasons given in the rejection order was not according to law.
33 In Friends Colony Development Committee Vs. State of Orissa and others reported in 2004 [8] SCC 733 the issue relating to the unauthorised construction and regularisation of the same by levying compounding fees, came up for consideration and it is relevant to extract the same:-
The material brought on record disclose a very sorry and sordid state of affairs prevailing in the matter of illegal and unauthorized constructions in the city of Cuttack. Builders violate with impunity the sanctioned building plans and indulge deviations. The builder conveniently walks away having pocketed the money leaving behind the unfortunate occupants to face the music in teh event of unauthorized constructions being detected or exposed and threatened with demolition. If such activities are to stop some stringent actions are required to be taken by ruthlessly demolishing the illegal constructions and non-compoundable deviations.he unwary purchasers who shall be the sufferers must be adequately compensated by the builder. The arms of the law must stretch to catch hold of such unscrupulous builders. At the same time, in order to secure vigilant performance of duties, responsibility should be fixed on the officials whose duty it was to prevent unauthorized constructions, but who failed in doing so either by negligence or by connivance.