activities, to violate laws openly. They will always proceed on the basis that the building regulations can be breached with impunity and all that they would be visited with, is high compounding fees. That is not the intention of the Legislature. The penal provisions in sections 52 and 53 of the MRTP Act, 1966, are enacted with a defined object and purpose. It is to discourage unauthorized and illegal development and also punish the wrong doers. In addition to punishment of wrong doers and ofenders,f the Legislature empowers the Planning Authority to pull down, remove or alter the unauthorized development or works. Therefore, there is a twin object and purpose in such provisions. That is to check and control unauthorized construction and development and at the same time penalise all those who are responsible for the same. Therefore, by merely charging compounding fees and imposing heavy fnes such construction cannot bei regularized. Ultimately, the exercise of this discretionary power must not result in a licence to break planning laws. Individual’s interest in a property, his right to enjoy it is subject to larger public good and purpose. That right has to be balanced with the requirements of the society. It is not absolute. While dealing with request of retention and regularization, the deviation and deficiencies, the extent of irregularities, the damage and ill-effects thereof and the conduct of the parties, are all relevant considerations. What can be termed as a minor deviation or departure in a given case, may still have adverse effects and consequences on the overall development and planning of the city and town. Once the population is increasing, then what is a minor deviation and what could be termed to be a major infraction or breach or violation of the planning laws, are matters which must be decided by the Planning Authorities in the facts and circumstances of each case bearing in mind the above objects and purpose. They
