BEFORE LAHORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY COMMISSION,LAHORE

PRESENT:

Mr. Najam Saeed, Chairman.

Mr. Javaid Akhtar, Member.

Reference No. 13/2015

Mrs. Zohra Jabeen, Mr. Tanvir Rana and Dr. Zafar Iqbal, Plot No. 19Block E, Gulberg II, Lahore

Applicants

Vs.

Lahore Development Authority through Additional Director General(Housing) /Authorized Officer, 467/0-11, Main Boulevard, M.A. JoharTown, Lahore.

Respondent

Order

The applicants' application for filling reference to the LDACommission was received through One Window as per receipt No.2216846dated 28-10-2015. The Additional Director General (Housing)/AuthorizedOfficer, LOA, filed this reference under sub-section (4) of section 32 of theLOA (Amendment) Act, 2013 read with sub-rule (1) of Rule 7 of the LahoreDevelopment Authority Commission Rules, 2014 in respect of the illegalconstruction made by the applicants on Plot No. 19, Block E, Gulberg II,Lahore. Reference received on 11.12.2015 was entered in the InstitutionRegister at Serial No.13 of 2015. Notices were issued to the applicantsalong with a copy of the reference filed by the LDA for submission of theirreply/comments. Col. (R) Tanvir Rana appeared on behalf of therespondents and filed written reply to the points raised in the reference.Comments of the Director, Town Planning were also obtained on theapplicants' reply. Miss. Saleha Shahid, Dy. Director and Mr. SikandarHaroon, Assistant Director, Town Planning, LDA appeared on behalf ofLOA. The parties have been heard. The site of the plot was visited by theCommission in the presence of the representatives of the parties on22.12.2016 and on 25.03.2016.

1

2. According to the LDA reference, the building file is not availablein the record. The owner was, therefore, asked to r ide a copy of the

sanctioned Plan. The sanctioned plan was provided by the owner alongwiththe following information;

• The plans for basement were released on 12.11.1999.• The plan for ground, 1st& 2nd floor were released on 08.12.2000.• The Plan for 3rd & 4thFloor was released on 06.04.2001.• Proposed Height = 60 Feet• Parking is not required in declared commercial areas.

3. The High Rise Building Commission (HBRC) after visiting thesite recommended that the basement is extended under arcade which is agross violation of the Building Regulations and the portion in the arcadehas to be filled with concrete. There is excess coverage from ground floorup to the 4th floor. The Deputy Director Town Planning LDA shall imposefine by preparing the Challan, delivering it to the developer and ensuringthat the payment is made in the exchequer of the LDA. However,subsequently, on 04-12-2009 the Honorable Supreme Court of Pakistanpassed the following order:

"Mr. Salman Aslam Butt, the learned legal advisor for the LDA,submits on our enquiry, that the LDA and other regulatoryauthorities were feeling handicapped in taking action againstthe ones raising the high rise buildings in violation of the law,the regulations and the rules of the subject, on account ofsome impression being created by an order dated 04-08-2008passed by this court. We have gone through the said orderand direct that no order passed by this court in theseproceedings shall be considered an impediment in the way ofany competent authority in taking any action whatsoever withrespect to any irregularities or illegalities committed in theconstruction of high rise buildings and the said concerned andthe competent authorities should now feel free to move in thematter and to take appropriate action, steps and measures.Needless to say that the orders of this court are always openfor the ones aggrieved."

In view of the above order there is no impediment in the way of thisCommission in taking any action whatsoever with respect to anyirregularities or illegalities committed in the construction of high risebuildings and to take appropriate action in accordance with section 32 ofthe Lahore Development Authority (Amendment) Act, 2013 and the LDACommission Rules, 2014.4. As per LDA reference at present the building constructedincludes Basement + Ground + 1stto 4th Floor and r + signal tower on

Sr.No. Non-Compoundable CompoundableViolations Violations

1. The Basement IS

extended under arcade.2. Room on 5th floor and

Signal booster/towererected on roof floorillegally.

3. Excess coverage of4085 sft done fromground floor to 4thfloor inthe shape of coverage ofvoids.

5thfloor with the height of approximately 68 feet excluding the height ofsignal tower. Detail of violation is as under:

"(c) The minimum area of the basement shall be 100 sft.(9,20sqm.) and shall be constructed after leaving themandatory open spaces required under Regulation No19,20&21."

5. As per reference, the first non-compoundable violation isconstruction of shops under the Arcade. In the Building Regulation No. 26of the LOA Building Regulations 1984 notified on 04.09.1984, the onlyrestriction was that "the foundations of the basement shall not intrude intoadjoining properties." Therefore, construction under the arcade was notprohibited. The Regulation 26 was amended vide notification dated21.01.1997 as under

Regulation No. 19, 20 & 21 relate to the building line and the open spaceswhereas arcade falls within the building line and is not an open space.Regulation No. 63 dealing with the arcade was not amended, which reads

"63. Arcade (where specified) to be used as footpath forpedestrians shall be constructed in front of the shopsthroughout and no building obstruction of any kind shall beallowed within the arcade."

On 07.06.2004 certain amendments were made but provisions regardingbasement remained unchanged. The LOA Regulations 1976, as revised in1984 and amended in 1997 and then in 2004 were consolidated in 2005and were notified on 07.12.2006. Provisions regarding basement remainedthe same except the Regulation Nos. 19, 20, 21, 26 were replace

c\'H D:~~ 3"~~l(JJ

I

"No mandatory open spaces are required in commercial/officebuildings in the main Civic and Commercial Centres includingDivisional and District Centres including basement except under thearcade."

with Regulation Nos. 17, 18, 19, 24 and 61 respectively. It was not before27.02.2007 that the following regulation was introduced in the LOA Buildingand Zoning Regulations, 2007;

3.3.1 Mandatory Open Spaces

It is evident that extension of basement under the arcade was notprohibited on 12.11.1999 when the plan up to plinth level was approved. Itwas only under the Regulations 2007 that extension of basement wasprohibited under the arcade and the above quoted clause was introducedfor the first time. Subsequently, the Authority approved amendment in theclause ibid on 18.04.2014 as under.

Regulation 3.3.1

"No mandatory open spaces are required in commercial/officebuilding use in the main Civic and Commercial Centres as well asDivisional and District Centres and neighborhood, including basementprovided the level of arcade shall not be more than 6-inches from theadjoining road level."

Neither was at the time of the approval of the original plan nor now is theextension of basement under the arcade prohibited. Basement wascompleted by 08.12.2000 and plan for the 3rd and the 4thfloors were alsoreleased on 06.04.2001. At that time extension of basement under thearcade was not prohibited and under the then prevalent BuildingRegulations, 1987 penalty for construction without approval of building plancould have been imposed only after the construction would have beencontinued after service of notice. There is nothing on the available buildingfile that any such notice was served on the owners. No penalty forextension of basement under the arcade is provided in the then prevalentregulations. In view of the above explained position, the observations of theHRC that the basement extended under arcade which was a gross violationof the Building Regulations and the portion in the arcade has to be filledwith concrete is totally unjustified. The basement was constructed muchbefore the promulgation of LOA Building Regulations, 2007 whichprohibited extension basement under the arcade. The Regulations ibidcould have not made applicable to the constructions already raised.Moreover, it was the duty of the LOA to carry out inspection of constructionand serve a notice on the person the building rks

indentifying the violation as per Regulation 15 of LDA Building Regulations,1987 which is reproduced below:-

"15. If on making any inspection under Regulation14, the Authorityfinds that the Building Works:-

I. Contravenes any of the provisions of these Regulations, anyofficer duly authorised in this behalf by the Authority, may bywritten notice require the person carrying out Building Works,within a period to be mentioned in such notice, either to makesuch alterations as shall be specified in such notice, with theobject of bringing the work in conformity with the said plans orprovisions of these Regulations or to get amended plansapproved after complying with the requirements of theseRegulations."

Under the above Regulation it was mandatory to offer three options to theperson carrying out Building Works i.e.

I. to make such alterations as shall be specified in such notice, withthe object of bringing the work in conformity with the approvedplans, or

II. to bring the work in conformity with the provisions of the thenprevalent Regulations, or

iii. to get amended plans approved after complying with therequirements of these Regulations

The difference between the second and the third option is that if theconstruction raised is against the then prevalent Regulations, the option willbe to bring it in conformity of Regulations e.g. if the voids to be left openunder the Regulations, have not been left open those can be made openand the construction will be in accordance with the Regulations. But underthe third option the building plan which was approved leaving the voidsopen would be got amended and voids will be allowed to be covered onpayment of the penalty provided under the Regulations. The LDA took noaction till the High Rise Building Commission was constituted which visitedthe site on 17.11.2008 and directed the Deputy Director Town PlanningLDA to impose fine by preparing the Challan, delivering it to the developerand ensuring that the payment is made in the exchequer of the LDA. Eventhen no action was taken by the LDA. According to the Regulationsprevalent at the time of construction of the basement, construction underthe arcade was not prohibited and no penalty for deviations from thesanctioned building plan was prescribed. Even penalty for constructionwithout prior approval of the building plan could have not been imposed

unlessa noticehadbeens:~: .~ :h~tthe applica re re~;d ;J\j~~v64.{£ 0, o~ tr

was to revise their building plan and the LDA could have charged the feeprescribed for scrutiny of the revised plan without imposing any penalty forconstruction under the arcade. The applicants, therefore, are not liable topay any penalty on this count. The applicants will have to revise theirbuilding plan and LDA can charge the fee prescribed for scrutiny of therevised plan without imposing any penalty for construction under thearcade.

6. Before the LDA Building Regulations, 2007 there was noconcept of non-compoundable violations of sanctioned building plan. On21.02.2008 LDA Building and Zoning Regulations, 2007 were notifiedwhich were published on 27.02.2008. Under these Regulations certainviolations of the sanctioned building plan were made non-compoundable.Regulation 10.11.1 is reproduced below:

"10.11.1 Non Compoundable Violations.Following violations of the sanctioned building plans shall be

non-compoundable:a. Conversion of an approved parking area in another use.b. Construction of additional floors.c. Any construction in the mandatory open spaces including

the setback to be left open on ground level.d. Shortage of car parking provisions.e. Building height and basement violations in main Civic and

Commercial Centres including Divisional and DistrictCentre.

f. Conversion of area provided under Section 5.3.1."

It was for the first time that violations of sanctioned building plans weremade non-compoundable, whereas previously no such provision existed.Previously only penalties for compoundable violations of regulations wereprovided and such building plan violations as were in conformity with theRegulations could have been rectified without any penalty by revising thebuilding plan as discussed herein before. It is evident that where anyconstruction had been made prior to 21.02.2008 which violated thesanctioned plan but was in conformity with the then prevalent Regulationswould have to be dealt with in accordance with those Regulations and theprovisions of the Building Regulations 2007 could have not been madeapplicable retrospectively.

7. On 18.04.2014 certain amendments were approved by theAuthority in the LDA Building & Zoning Regulations, 2007. The followingamendments were approved regarding non-compoundable violations:

Existing Regulations Proposed AmendmentsFollowing violation of the sanctionedbuilding plans shall be non­compoundable;c. Any constructionmandatory open spacesthe setback to be leftground level.e. Building height and basementviolations In main Civic andCommercial Centres includingDivisional and District Centre.f. Conversion of areas providedunder Section 5.3.1.

In theincludingopen on

Following violation of commercialbuilding plans shall be non­compoundable;c. Any construction in themandatory open spaces includingthe setback to be left open onground level In commercial andconverted plots.e. Building height and basementviolations In main Civic andCommercial Centres includingDivisional and District Centre aboveprescribed height limit.f. Conversion of areas providedunder Section 5.3.1.

Present position of non-compoundable violations is as under;"Following violation of commercial building plans shall be non­compoundable;

a. Conversion of an approved parking area in another use.b. Construction of additional floors.c. Any construction in the mandatory open spaces including

the setback to be left open on ground level in commercialand converted plots.

d. Shortage of car parking provisions.e. Building height and basement violations in Main Civic and

Commercial Centres including Divisional and DistrictCentre above prescribed height limit.

f. Conversion of areas provided under Section 5.3.1."

In view of the above provisions there is no doubt that construction ofadditional floors was a non compoundable violation at the time the HRCvisited the site on 07.11.2008. However, at that time there was only oneroom on the 5th floor. According to the HRC's report the representative ofthe owner volunteered to demolish the one room to bring the constructionin conformity with the building plan submitted. The HRC directed the LOAto visit the site after one month and in case the room had not beendemolished, he will ensure that it is demolished. The HRC furtherobserved;

"The building except one room on the 5th floor corresponds with theconfiguration given by the developer in the building plan earliersubmitted to the LOA for approval. The Caretaker representing t e

owners volunteered to demolish the one room on the 5thfloor so as tobring it in conformity with the building plan submitted. One month'stime was given to the builder. Mr. Tariq Mahmood, Deputy Director,Town Planning LOA shall visit the site after the expiry the period andensure that the room has been demolished failing which he shallreport to the Commission. If the room is not demolished theCommission recommends to the Honourable Supreme Court fordismantling of the room as and when the case comes up for hearing."

From the HRC's observations it is established that only one room existed atthe time of the visit on 07.11.2008. At present the area of the constructionon the 5thfloor is 2327 sft. Such huge construction neither could have beenconsidered a room by the HRC nor would the owners have agreed todemolish such huge construction. Certainly it was only one room which theowners volunteered to demolish. The applicant contended that noconstruction was made after the visit of the HRC and in support of his claimCol. (Retd.) Tanvir Rana submitted an affidavit along with a copy of Deedof Lease with the U-Phone date 07-12-2004. It has been contended thatthe entire existing structure was present at the time of visit of HRC and theroom to be demolished was in fact at the top. The contention is notplausible because the HRC has clearly mentioned that the room is on thefifth floor and if it was at the top then it was certainly at the sixth floor whichdo not exist. It cannot be expected of HRC to ignore the construction at thefifth floor or they would have declare the big hall of 2327 sq.ft. as to be aroom. The copy of deed of agreement indicate that only a space measuring45x22 was to be provided under the agreement. The room for BTS wasrequired for the purpose of installation of swithches and other alliedequipments. This agreement also establishes that there was only one smallroom for switches existed at the time of visit of HRC. Therefore the area onthe 5th floor was constructed after the visit of HRC and has to be dealt inaccordance with the provision of Regulations 2007.

8. The HRC after their visit of the site on 17.11.2008 directed theDeputy Director Town Planning LOA to impose fine by preparing theChallan, delivering it to the developer and ensuring that the payment ismade in the exchequer of the LOA. But no action was taken by the LOA torecover the penalty and regularize the construction. The construction onthe 5th floor have been made without approval of the building plan as thePlan for 3rd & 4th floors only was released on 06.04.2001. Therefore, it is anon-compoundable violation. The applicant requested to regularize therooms on the 5th floor under regulation 3.3.2 of the LOA BuildingRegulations notified on 21.02.2008 claiming the height of the building at 68ft. against permissible height of 70 ft.

~9~7 .0((.[6

9. Under the LDA Building Regulations, 2007 as amended on 05-06-2014 construction without approval of building plan is a compoundableviolation and the following penalty has been provided at serial No. 11(c) ofthe Annex:-'D' of the Regulations;

Construction of any form RS.300/sft. plus fine of RS.1OOO/day.including excavation forconstruction prior toapproval of building plan.

Although construction without prior approval of the building plan is a moreserious violation then violation of sanctioned building plan in conformitywith building regulations yet construction of additional floors in violation ofthe sanctioned building plan has been made a non-compoundableviolation.10. The above discussed violations of sanctioned building plan canbe divided into two categories;

I. Construction which was permissible under theRegulations but has been declared non compoundablewhere made without being sanctioned in the buildingplan e.g. construction upto 70 ft. height in the LibertyMarket.

II. Construction which was not permissible under theRegulations e.g. construction above 70 ft. height in theLiberty Market.

In the Liberty Market construction up to 70 ft. height was permissible underthe Regulations, 2007 and in case the owners had submitted building planincluding the 5th floor as well within the prescribed 70 ft. height and withinthe limits of prescribed covered area, the plan would have beensanctioned. In the present case the construction on the 5th floor neitherdoes violated the prescribed height nor is in excess of the prescribed limitsof covered area. Thus the contention of the Director Town Planning thatpenalty should be imposed as per present rates of penalty for excess areaas well as for construction without approval of building plan cannot beaccepted. As the constructed area at the 5th floor is not in excess of thelimits prescribed under the Regulations for covered area, penalty at serialNo. 11(a) & (b) of the Appendix-D is not attracted. Therefore, despite beinga non-compoundable violation, it would not be fair if penalty harsher thanthat provided for construction without prior approval of building plan isimposed. The only penalty which can be imposed is the one provided atserial No. 11(c) quoted above.11. The representative of LDA contended that this being a non­compoundable violation, penalty should be impose hrice of the pre ent

..

penalty rates of the similar violation of compoundable violation as has beendone in the case of plot No. 08, Commercial Zone, Liberty Market(Reference No.06/2015). It was further contended that while imposingpenalty all the penalties at serial No. 11 (a), (b) and (c) should be taken intoconsideration. The applicant on the other hand, however, has averred thatconstruction on the 5thfloor should be regularized in view of the provisionsof Regulation 3.3.2 of the 2007 Regulations. The applicant's demandcannot be acceded to because the construction of the 5thfloor has beenraised in violation of the sanctioned building plan which is a non­compoundable violation. Such violations cannot be condoned withoutpenalty. Similarly the contention of the LOA is not plausible as in ReferenceNo. 06/2015 the construction was made violating the prescribed height limitand covered area limits, whereas in the present case height limit andcovered area limits have not been violated. The only violation in this case isconstruction at the 5thfloor in violation of the sanctioned building plan. Forthe reasons discussed above, only one penalty for violation of sanctionedbuilding plan is, therefore, recommended to be imposed. As far as the fineof Rs. 500 per day as mentioned at Serial No. 11 C of Appendix 0 of theRegulations 2007 is concerned, at this stage the period of violation cannotbe exactly determined. Therefore a lump sum amount can only beimposed.

12. In the present case the applicant covered the voids on all floorsupto the 4thfloor, which is a compoundable violation. All that was requiredto ask the applicant to file an amended building plan and penalty for thecompoundable violations should have been imposed under the relevantBuilding Regulations. Under the above quoted Regulation 15, it wasmandatory to allow him the third option to revise the plan on payment of thepenalty prescribed in Appendix-D. The applicant contended that "theexcess covered area need to be estimated correctly and whatever area isfinalized the owners are ready to pay the excess coverage charges of LOAas directed by the Kiani Commission from the date of its construction year2000-2001. Such cases were decided by Justice Kiani and many othershave sought relief as mentioned above. i.e. owners of C-3, Block 5,Gulberg III, Lahore have deposited fee from the date of the construction ofthe building." On the other hand the representative of the LOA contendedthat as the case is being decided now, the presently applicable rates ofpenalty as revised in 2014 should be applied. The building file of AhadArcade was examined. Perusal of the building file revealed that the AhadArcade constructed on plot No. C-3, Block 5, Gulberg III was inspected bythe HRC on 16.07.2007. Chairman, HRC observed that LOA should issueChallan of violations upto 5th floor. The LOA pr red Challan for Rs.

1,79,42, 676/- in respect of violations including penalty for constructionwithout the release of the building plan. Relevant noting in respect AhadArchade is reproduced below:

"The Chairman summoned Town Planner, Director TP, DeputyDirector TP and Inspector in his office on 20.07.2007 anddiscussed the request of owner. He advised to look into penaltyrates to be applied during different periods of constructionabove plinth level to the present construction of five floors. It isto be noted that the staff at para (435/N) of the noting filereported on 17.10.2006 that 4th floor of building is underconstruction without release of plans. At para (442/N) of the file,it was again reported on 28.10.2006 by the field staff that theconstruction is going on at 5thfloor level. Thus, the two reportsof the field staff show that three floors i.e. 3rd" Fourth and fifthIhave been completed in the year 2006. A demand notice ofpenalty of Rs.59,76,762/- was prepared and submitted to theowner, who has deposited the amount in the LDA treasury on21.07.2007. It is, therefore, submitted that since the owner haspaid deviations charges upto 5thfloor completed so far, revisedplan upto 8thfloor may be allowed to release which have notbeen released so far."

This note is signed by the DD, TP(C), the Director (TP) and the then TownPlanner Qazi Masud. This note does indicate that it is the period ofconstruction which is relevant for determination of the penalty ratesapplicable. Opinion of the Chairman HRC contained in the note send to theTown Planner on 18.09.2007 in the same case also clarifies the issuewhich also is reproduced below:

"In part-B of the report of Director Town Planning, it has beenstated that the 5thand last floor upto now was completed in theyear 2006. I have now been asked to give opinion regardingrates which have to be applied to compoundable violation.

I have applied my mind to the issue and my advice is as under:-

Legislation, which includes an act, ordinance, rule, by-laws,regulations and standing instructions are always prospective inoperation unless the law-giver specifically mentions in the actibid that it would apply with a retrospect effect from any noteddate. The question arises that where a builder submits a planfor building a plaza and completes it, which is found to havecertain violations; at what rate would he be penalized if thesame are compoundable. A builder ca uild when the pia is

approved and if the same is not done so within 60-days, it shallbe deemed to have been sanctioned. The case of 05.11.2007given in the opening para of the note of Director Town Planningis obviously wrong, as till today the said date has not arrived. Inmany cases like that of Liberty Gate, Mr. Masood Ahmad Qazi,Town Planner alongwith Mr. Kamil Khan Mumtaz inspected thesite and changed the report on the protest of the builder thatrates were applied according to the 2006 Regulations, whereashe had constructed the building before the said enactmentcame into force. In this case also as reported by the DirectorTown Planning, the 5th storey was completed in the year 2006,therefore, the old rates prevalent in the old regulations of 2002to be applied, which was in vogue before the Regulations(2006) has to be applied. Consequently Mr. Ahad Malik wasasked to pay Rs. 59, 76, 762 for violations which he did. Healso promised that he would raise his plaza upto 8th floor andnot 11th floors. I believe this undertaking is with the LahoreDevelopment Authority."

It is a well established law that no Regulations can be made effectiveretrospectively and as such penalties applicable at the time when anycompoundable violation was committed has to be imposed. In the presentcase plans for the 3rd and the 4th floors were released on 06.04.2001.Therefore, the penalty rates in vogue in the year 2001 have to be applied.

13. The issue of installation of Signal booster/tower on the roof ofthe building has to be dealt with separately by the LOA. Regulations forinstallation of Antennas/Towers were notified on 19.06.2004 for the firsttime. Any violation of the Regulations should be got rectified as installationof BTSlTowers/Antennas on the high-rise buildings is permissible under theRegulation ibid and no penalty of any violation is provided. In case theapplicant and the U-Phone company fulfills the requirements of theregulations, installation of Tower is recommended to be regularizedon payment of the prescribed the fees.

14. In the light of the above discussion the penalties in this caseare worked out as under:-

-Unauthorized construction of part of storey on the 5th

floor. 2250 sft. @ Rs.300/- per sft. plus a lump sumfine of Rs. 1,00,000/- for the construction on 5th flooras prescribed in the 2007 Regulations.-Unauthorized construction in excess of limitsprescribed for covered area. (663-77= 586 sft.) voi

Rs. 7, 75,000/-

Rs. 17,580/-

12

oL(./£

covered @ Rs. 30/- per sft. at the ground floor and Rs.45/- per sft. at the subsequent floors as prescribed inthe Regulations in vogue in 2001.-Unauthorized construction in excess of limits Rs. 2,25,000/­prescribed for covered area. (5307 -307)=5000sft. i.e.excess coverage on four floors @ Rs. 45/- per sft.Total penalty Rs. 10, 17,580/-

A;,.: c. 13

~.[6

15. In case the above recommended penalty is not acceptable tothe applicant, he may opt to rectify the violation/s. In case of any patenterror or omission apparent from the face of the record, is subsequentlydiscovered in any or all the above measurement/computations, theCommission may rectify the same on an application by either party afteraffording an opportunity of being heard to the other party.

16. In view of the above discussed facts, the record perused, theevidence examined and discussions made with the representatives of theLDA and the applicants, recommendations of the Commission are asunder:-

1) The applicant may opt either to remove the above mentionedviolations by demolishing the un-authorized constructed area oralternatively to pay a penalty of Rs. 10, 17,580/- as worked outabove provided that he furnishes a structure stability certificatefrom the authorised Structure Engineer. In case they opt forpayment of the penalty for the above discussed violations, theviolations shall stand condoned.

2) The applicants will revise the building plans accordingly, eitherby rectification of the violation or payment of penalty asdiscussed above. The revised plans submitted by the applicantwill be processed on payment of prescribe fee expeditiously bythe concerned Director Town Planning, will be cleared within 90days from the date of submission of the revised building plansat One Window by the applicant.

3) Unless the applicants file an appeal, they can opt at any timeafter receipt of this order but not later than 15 days after theexpiry of the period of appeal, to rectify the above discussedviolations. In case they opt to rectify the violations, they shallensure that the violations are rectified before they file therevised building plans.

4) Within 30 days after clearance of the building plans or after theexpiry of the above mentioned period of 90 days, whichever isearlier, Challan for payment of the abov etermined amount of

Rs. 10, 17, 5801-, for the above mentioned violations alongwithany other charges recoverable from the applicant as per law,will be issued by the LOA, which shall be paid by the applicantwithin 60 days of the receipt of the Challans by him.

5) It is further recommended to resolve the issue that on paymentof the above amount, issuance of Completion Certificate will beensured by the LOAwithin 60 days of the payment of the aboveamount or on completion of incomplete work, if any, whicheveris later.

6) In case the applicant does not opt for payment of penalty anddoes not demolish the unauthorized construction, theunauthorized construction shall be demolished by the LOA atthe risk and cost of the applicant.

Announced07.04.2016

14