Planned Development Over Revenue: Court Condemns Development Authorities' Practice of Compounding Illegal Constructions

Court Castigates Development Authorities for Prioritizing Compounding Revenue Over Planned Urban Development

In a recent judgment, the [Name of Court - Based on context, likely High Court] has strongly criticized the practice of development authorities allowing constructions exceeding sanctioned building plans and then regularizing these illegal structures through compounding. The court emphasized that the primary objective of development authorities is planned urban development, not revenue generation through compounding fees from illegal constructions.

Background of the Case

The case arose from a petition filed by a homeowner alleging that a neighboring property owner (private respondents) was constructing a building in violation of the sanctioned plan, causing damage to the petitioner's property. The court took cognizance of the grievance and, in an earlier order, directed the Development Authority to investigate and ensure no construction contrary to the sanctioned map was allowed.

Development Authority's Stance and Court's Observations

During the proceedings, the Development Authority's counsel admitted that the private respondents were indeed constructing beyond the sanctioned plan. However, they argued that these additional constructions fell within "compoundable limits" and the respondent had been given an opportunity to apply for compounding.

This response drew sharp criticism from the court. The judgment highlighted the fundamental purpose of the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973, and associated building bye-laws, which are designed to ensure planned urban development. The court observed a disturbing trend where development authorities seem to be prioritizing revenue through compounding over enforcing adherence to sanctioned plans.

"What is, however, disturbing is the practice of allowing constructions in excess of approved plan and thereafter entertaining compounding plans, ostensibly with the purpose of augmenting the financial interest of the development authority. The object of establishment of development authority is planned development and not to allow illegal constructions and thereafter compound illegal constructions by charging huge money."

The court further pointed out the inherent unfairness of this system. Law-abiding citizens who adhere to building bye-laws are restricted to sanctioned constructions, while those who violate regulations can gain additional construction area by paying compounding fees. This, the court noted, creates a perverse incentive, benefiting "unscrupulous elements" at the expense of planned urban development.

Compounding - A Necessary Tool or Loophole?

The judgment acknowledges the rationale behind compounding, recognizing its utility in cases where prior sanction might not have been obtained for various justifiable reasons. However, it firmly asserted that compounding should not be used to relax building bye-laws or permit constructions exceeding permissible limits.

"We may also specify that the norms for constructions as per the building bye-laws must not be relaxed in cases of compounding, inasmuch as the compounding can only be to facilitate ex-post facto approval of plan, but while doing so, the building norms cannot be relaxed. What is not permissible under the building bye-laws should not be allowed by way of compounding."

Court's Directions and Implications

In its final order, the court directed the Development Authority to ensure that no construction beyond the sanctioned plan is permitted on the site. It further instructed the State Government to issue directives to all development authorities to strictly enforce building bye-laws and cease the practice of allowing constructions exceeding permissible limits under the guise of compounding.

The Principal Secretary of the Department of Housing was directed to file a personal affidavit ensuring compliance with these directions. The Vice-Chairman of the Development Authority was specifically tasked with ensuring adherence to the sanctioned plan at the site in question and assessing damages to the petitioner's property due to deviations.

This judgment sends a strong message to development authorities, emphasizing the importance of planned urban development and strict adherence to building regulations. It signals a move to curb the practice of illegal constructions and misuse of compounding provisions for revenue generation, potentially leading to more regulated and planned urban growth. The matter is next listed for hearing on 8th April 2024.