UP Urban Planning & Development | Allowing Illegal Construction By Compounding Is Disturbing; Deviation From Building Bye-Laws Must Stop: Allahabad HC

The Allahabad High Court has expressed displeasure at the practice of development authority allowing illegal constructions to be raised beyond the sanctioned plan and legalizing the same by way of compounding. The Court held that such practice of allowing illegal construction by relaxing and deviating from the building bye-laws must stop.

The bench comprising of Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi observed that

“Building bye-laws and plans are supposed to be followed scrupulously so that urban development is allowed in a planned manner. 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.”

Petitioner approached the High Court against the illegal construction being allowed by the development authority against the sanctioned map. The said illegal construction was causing damage to the adjoining construction of the petitioner.

Counsel for the Development Authority submitted that though the private respondents were raising construction beyond the sanctioned map, they have been allowed to apply for compounding.

The Court observed that urban areas are required to developed in accordance with the sanction plan for which U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 has been enacted and building bye-laws have been framed. The Court observed that so long as the construction is being raised in accordance with the sanctioned map/plan, there can be no objection. However, illegal construction beyond the sanctioned map cannot be permitted on the grounds that additional construction is compoundable.

The Court held that the development authorities have been established to ensure “planned development and not to allow illegal constructions and thereafter compound illegal constructions by charging huge money.”

“Organized nexus appears to be operating in the development authorities where the builders, in collusion with other elements collude for raising constructions contrary to the building plan.”

The Court observed that compounding is understood when prior sanction could not be obtained due to various reasons. However, construction cannot be allowed over and above the prescription of building bye-laws even by way of compounding.

The Court held that easing the norms of permissible construction by way of compounding will lead to curing the illegality and violate the object of planned development.

“An honest person who gets his building plan approved as per the building bye-laws would be allowed to raise constructions over a lesser area, while the one who violates the law by raising illegal constructions is allowed to raise additional constructions in the garb of compounding, by paying additional money, to the authority. While development authority benefits in the form of additional revenue from compounding the unscrupulous elements operating in the field also benefit. Everyone wins at the cost of planned development.”

The question which the Court asked was whether the development authorities have been established to facilitate planned development or to facilitate large scale violation of building laws through compounding.

The Court held that even though the authority had been informed that the construction being carried on by the private respondents was beyond permissible area as per the map, the authority instead of restricting the construction, legalized it by asking respondents to file for compounding. The Court held that such practice of the development authority must be discouraged.

“The practice of allowing deviations and then facilitating such departures from the norms by getting the maps compounded must stop.”

The Court directed the State Government to issue directions to all development authorities to ensure that no constructions are allowed to be raised over and above the permissible constructions as per the building bye-laws. The Court further held that though compounding is permissible post approval of the plan, however, building bye-laws cannot be relaxed for the purpose of compounding.

Accordingly, the Court has directed the Principle Secretary of the Department of Housing to file his personal affidavit stating compliance of the directions issued by the Court. Further, directions were issued to the Vice Chairman of the development authority to assess the damage allegedly caused to the petitioner.

Case Title: Brijmohan Tanwar v. State Of Up And 4 Others [WRIT - C No. - 5761 of 2024]

Counsel for Petitioner: Anil Kant Tripathi, Praveen Kumar

Counsel for Respondent :Pradeep Kumar Tripathi, Ravi Prakash Pandey

Click Here To Read/Download Order