(1) WE have heard learned counsel on both sides.

(2) IT is urged on behalf of the petitioners that the structural changes brought about by the petitioners in respect of the building do not amount to construction and that, at all events, no notice had been served on them before the impugned orders were made.

(3) WE reject both the contentions. There is no justification to hold that service was not effected. As to the nature and extent of structural changes, the tribunal relied upon the report of Sri V. P. Gupta, Assistant Engineer-cum- Commissioner to reach the finding that the structural changes brought about, having regard to their nature and extent, did constitute constructions unauthorisedly made. We, therefore, find no merit in the special leave petitions which are accordingly dismissed.

(4) HOWEVER, it is to be pointed out that the mere departure from the authorised plan or putting up a construction without sanction does not ipso facto and without more necessarily and inevitably justify demolition of the structure. There are cases and cases of such unauthorised constructions. Some are amenable to compounding and some may not be. There may be cases