Building-plan deviations cannot be routinely regularized; deliberate unauthorized construction may face demolition, rehabilitation duties, and builder liability.

Compounding of building-plan deviations is an exceptional power reserved for bona fide or minor departures, not deliberate and substantial violations by a professional builder. The Court held that unauthorized construction undermines planned development, strains civic infrastructure, and may justify demolition of non-compoundable portions rather than routine regularization. It further held that mere reconsideration of revised plans was insufficient where the record required a fuller inquiry into regularizable deviation, demolition, occupant consequences, rehabilitation, and compensation at the builder's cost, with the public interest petition heard together. The earlier order was set aside and the matter remitted for consolidated determination with protective directions.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether deliberate and substantial deviations from sanctioned building plans by a professional builder could be lightly regularized or compounded; (ii) Whether the High Court's order permitting fresh reconsideration of revised plans was sustainable, or the matter required fresh adjudication with public interest safeguards.

Issue (i): Whether deliberate and substantial deviations from sanctioned building plans by a professional builder could be lightly regularized or compounded.

Analysis: The governing framework of planned development and building regulation permits compounding only as an exception. Such power is intended for bona fide or minor deviations, or where demolition would cause greater hardship than the benefit secured. Deliberate violations by professional builders stand on a different footing, because they are expected to know the law and their departures from sanctioned plans are ordinarily profit-driven. The Court emphasized that unauthorized constructions prejudice planned urban development, strain civic infrastructure, endanger occupants, and may warrant stern action including demolition of non-compoundable portions.

Conclusion: Deliberate and substantial deviations by a professional builder are not ordinarily entitled to regularization or compounding, and non-compoundable unauthorized construction may be ordered to be demolished.

Issue (ii): Whether the High Court's order permitting fresh reconsideration of revised plans was sustainable, or the matter required fresh adjudication with public interest safeguards.

Analysis: The Court found that the controversy had not been adequately addressed by merely directing reconsideration of a revised plan. In the facts shown, the proper course was a fuller enquiry into the extent of regularizable deviation, the extent of illegal construction requiring demolition, and the consequences for occupants. The Court also required that any demolition-linked displacement be met with rehabilitation and compensation at the builder's cost, and that the matter be heard together with the pending public interest petition.

Conclusion: The High Court's order was unsustainable and the matter required fresh hearing and determination with protective directions.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, the earlier order was set aside, and the dispute was remitted for consolidated consideration with directions designed to curb illegal construction and protect affected occupants.

Ratio Decidendi: Compounding of building-plan deviations is an exceptional power meant for minor or bona fide departures, and deliberate unauthorized constructions by professional builders should not be routinely regularized; where public interest is implicated, courts must ensure a full inquiry into demolition, regularization, rehabilitation, and builder accountability.

---