ORDER : 1. There being enormous deviations from the sanctioned plan in constructing the multi-storeyed building, after following the due process of law, construction beyond sanctioned plan was directed to be demolished by the Patna Regional Development Authority. Deviation is shocking and can be undertaken only by such person who considers himself to be law unto himself. One of the deviations is that against sanction of 24 flats in 6 floors at the rate of 4 flats per floor, 9 floors have been constructed having 6 flats every floor. 2. Appellant's challenge to the same in writ petition and thereafter in Letters Patent Appeal have failed. 3. Aggrieved by the same, appellant is before us with the leave of the Court. 4. By order dated 19th July, 2004, leave was granted subject to the appellant depositing a sum of seventy five lakhs within stipulated time. 5. The appeal was heard in part yesterday and when the matter is taken up today, Mr. Huzefa Ahmadi, learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the appellant makes the following prayer: "The petitioner states that in view of certain subsequent developments he wishes to move the appropriate authorities to regularise the building in question as due to change in bye- laws, regularisation is possible. Let the petition be withdrawn with liberty, as aforesaid, since, the order of status quo has continued from 6.1.2004 it may be continued for a period of three months. The petition may be disposed of as withdrawn in the aforesaid terms." 6. Appellant has subverted the rule of law with impunity and cannot be allowed to do so any further. 7. In view of the above, we are not inclined to accede to this prayer as, in our opinion, it would be destructive of rule of law. 8. It is high time that this Court tells the builders, developers and colonizers loud and clear that building in violation of sanctioned plan cannot be allowed to exist. It retards the planned development of the city at the peril of the occupants of the premises as also the inhabitants of the city at large. We must remind ourselves what the court observed in the case of Friends Colony Development Committee v. State of Orissa (2004) 8 SCC 733 , which is as under: "...The cases of professional builders stand on a different footing from an individual constructing his own building. We must remind ourselves what the court observed in the case of Friends Colony Development Committee v. State of Orissa (2004) 8 SCC 733 , which is as under: "...The cases of professional builders stand on a different footing from an individual constructing his own building. A professional builder is supposed to understand the laws better and deviations by such builders can safely be assumed to be deliberate and done with the intention of earning profits and hence deserve to be dealt with sternly so as to act as a deterrent for future. It is common knowledge that the builders enter into underhand dealings. Be that as it may, the State Governments should think of levying heavy penalties on such builders and therefrom develop a welfare fund which can be utilised for compensating and rehabilitating such innocent or unwary buyers who are displaced on account of demolition of illegal constructions." (emphasis supplied) 9. How reckless violation needs to be dealt has been addressed by this Court in the case of Royal Paradise Hotel (P) Ltd. v. State of Haryana and Ors. (2006) 7 SCC 597 , wherein this Court has observed as follows: "We also find no merit in the argument that regularisation of the acts of violation of the provisions of the Act ought to have been permitted. No authority administering municipal laws and other laws like the Act involved here, can encourage such violations. Even otherwise, compounding is not to be done when the violations are deliberate, designed, reckless or motivated. Marginal or insignificant accidental violations unconsciously made after trying to comply with all the requirements of the law can alone qualify for regularisation which is not the rule, but a rare exception. The authorities and the High Court were hence right in refusing the request of the appellant." 10-11. Incidents of illegal and unauthorised construction are rising and need to be dealt with firm hands. We cannot shut our eyes to this naked reality. This was ventilated by this Court in the case of Priyanka Estates International Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Assam (2010) 2 SCC 27 in the following words: "It is a matter of common knowledge that illegal and unauthorised constructions beyond the sanctioned plans are on rise, may be due to paucity of land in big cities. This was ventilated by this Court in the case of Priyanka Estates International Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Assam (2010) 2 SCC 27 in the following words: "It is a matter of common knowledge that illegal and unauthorised constructions beyond the sanctioned plans are on rise, may be due to paucity of land in big cities. Such activities are required to be dealt with by firm hands otherwise builders/colonisers would continue to build or construct beyond the sanctioned and approved plans and would still go scot-free. Ultimately, it is the flat owners who fall prey to such activities as the ultimate desire of a common man is to have a shelter of his own. Such unlawful constructions are definitely against the public interest and hazardous to the safety of occupiers and residents of multistoreyed buildings. To some extent both parties can be said to be equally responsible for this. Still the greater loss would be of those flat owners whose flats are to be demolished as compared to the builder." There is yet another reason to decline the prayer for withdrawal of the appeal. Appellant has obtained an interim order as back as on 6.1.2004 restraining demolition from this Court which continues even today. It shall be travesty of justice to give the appellant further chance to subvert the law." 12. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we direct the respondents and their successors to demolish the unauthorised construction forthwith. The amount deposited by the appellant along with interest accrued thereon be transmitted in the account of Patna Municipal Corporation forthwith. The cost of demolition shall be borne from this account. In case further amount is needed, same shall be recovered from the appellant. If any amount is left, the Patna Municipal Corporation shall transfer the same to the Chief Minister's Relief Fund. In case, appellant volunteers to remove and demolish the unauthorised construction, the respondent may allow it to do so. But it shall be the responsibility of the respondent and Patna Municipal Corporation to see that the orders have been carried out by the appellant in true letter and spirit. In that case the entire sum of Rs. 75 lakhs with accrued interest shall be transferred to the Chief Minister's Relief Fund. 13. But it shall be the responsibility of the respondent and Patna Municipal Corporation to see that the orders have been carried out by the appellant in true letter and spirit. In that case the entire sum of Rs. 75 lakhs with accrued interest shall be transferred to the Chief Minister's Relief Fund. 13. We direct the Chief Secretary and the Director General of the Police of the State of Bihar to ensure compliance of this Order within two months from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order and send the compliance report. 14. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, we deem it expedient to grant liberty to all those persons who shall be affected by the demolition to resort to such proceeding as permissible in law for recovery of loss as also the damages or such other relief as they feel entitled. 15. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal with the directions aforesaid.