- (1.) A dishonest builder, who raises construction without any sanction plan, cannot be treated at par with an honest builder who, in the process of raising construction with a sanction plan, makes minor deviation unintentionally. So far as the dishonest builder is concerned, no leniency should be shown to him and/or the illegal construction raised by him and in case such construction is raised by such a builder with profit earning motive and/or for commercial exploitation out of such illegal construction then the Municipal Authority should not relax the Building Rules and Regulation for regularizing such illegal construction by keeping in mind that exercise of such power of relaxation is an exception to the Rule. However, such a rigid view need not be taken to regularize minor deviation which was made bonafide in the process of raising some construction with a sanction plan. In such cases, some laxity may be shown to regularize such minor deviation by relaxing the Building Rules or Regulations provided such construction is structurally stable and does not affect the ventilation i. e. right to air and light of the neighbouring owners and/or occupiers of the adjoining premises and safety of public life and property is not endangered by retention of such construction.
(2.) Keeping in mind the aforesaid basic principle of law, let me now consider the merit of this writ petition in the facts of the instant case.
(3.) Here is a case where this Court finds that after obtaining a building sanction plan for raising a two-storied building at premises No. 234, Baghajyotin Place, the petitioner herein not only added one additional storey but also raised unauthorized construction right from the ground floor upto the third floor by covering the mandatory open space and thereby extending the construction by covering floor area more than the permissible floor area ratio. Thus, a demolition proceeding was initiated against him in respect of such illegal and/or unauthorized construction which was raised by the petitioner without any sanction plan. The Special Officer (Building) found that the petitioner intentionally violated various provisions of the Building Rules such as, Rule 51, Rule 56, Rule 57, Rule 61 and Rule 68 in constructing such unauthorized construction. It was found by the Special Officer (Building) that he consumed more floor area ratio than the permissible limit. It was found that consumed floor area ratio is 2.36 which exceeds the permissible ratio i. e. 1.75. Thus, the Special Officer (Building) was of view that certain part of such unauthorized construction should be demolished to reduce the consumed floor area to some extent. Thus, the petitioner was directed to demolish the unauthorized construction of the varanda and one bed room constructed in front of North-East corner at third floor level and regularized the remaining part of such unauthorized construction on realization of penalty from the petitioner. The Special Officer (Building) regularized such unauthorized construction as demolition of such unauthorized construction may cause the structural strength of the entire building unsafe and unstable.;