JUDGMENT : The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 02.06.2022 passed by the Appellate Tribunal, Ranchi Regional Development Authority (RRDA), Ranchi in Misc. Appeal No. 31 of 2018 whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 22.05.2018 passed by the respondent No.2 in U. C. Case No. 163/2015 has been dismissed and he has been directed to deposit a penalty of Rs.1,00,000/- as per the aforesaid order dated 22.05.2018 and to forthwith restore the parking area also directing the respondent No.1 to take decision on the revised building plan submitted by the petitioner, if the same is pending. The petitioner has also prayed for quashing the order dated 22.05.2018 passed by the respondent No.2 in U.C. Case No. 163 of 2015 whereby he was directed to demolish three rooms unauthorizedly constructed on the ground floor of Rajeshwari Apartment, Kalyanpur, Hatia (Ranchi) [hereinafter referred as ‘the said apartment’] in deviation of the sanctioned plan as well as to deposit a penalty of Rs.1,00,000/- under Section 428 of the Jharkhand Municipal Corporation Act, 2011 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act, 2011’) and was prohibited to use the said three rooms constructed on the ground floor of the said apartment with an order to forthwith seal the same. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the building plan of the said apartment was sanctioned by the R.R.D.A, Ranchi vide B.C Case No. 591 of 2001 as per which, there was to be a staircase and an electrical room followed by a servant room on the ground floor and beyond that, there was certain vacant space left. As per the said sanctioned plan, Floor Area Ratio (F.A.R) of 2.01 was achieved against a permissible F.A.R of 2.5. After sanction of the building plan, the petitioner constructed three additional rooms measuring 45.40 square meter in the vacant space of the ground floor apart from the sanctioned plan. By doing so, he in fact achieved the F.A.R of 2.12 which was within the permissible limit. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application for revised building plan on 26.05.2016 seeking condonation of deviation in the sanctioned plan on payment of prescribed additional fee, which was an acceptable practice in case certain deviations were found after completion of the buildings. Accordingly, Ranchi Municipal Corporation (RMC), issued receipt to that effect on 22.07.2016. 3. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application for revised building plan on 26.05.2016 seeking condonation of deviation in the sanctioned plan on payment of prescribed additional fee, which was an acceptable practice in case certain deviations were found after completion of the buildings. Accordingly, Ranchi Municipal Corporation (RMC), issued receipt to that effect on 22.07.2016. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner did not make any construction causing impediment in any part of the area earmarked for the parking space. However, a proceeding being U.C. Case No. 163 of 2015 was initiated on the basis of joint complaint made by the respondent Nos. 3 to 8 with respect to the construction made on the ground floor of the said apartment in which the petitioner appeared and filed a detailed reply stating that the alleged deviation was within the condonable limit and the same should be condoned. Accordingly, the petitioner also produced a copy of application dated 26.05.2016 informing that he had applied for sanction of the revised plan online and also brought on record the receipt issued by the R.M.C to that effect. Thereafter, an inspection was conducted by the Junior Engineer, Town Planning Section, RMC, Ranchi on 16.01.2018, who reported that the setbacks of front, rear, Side-I, Side-II of the said apartment were correct, however, on the ground floor, three rooms were constructed apart from servant room and electrical room, which was in deviation of the sanctioned plan. Thereafter, the respondent-RMC kept the application of the petitioner filed for sanction of revised building plan pending and vide order dated 22.05.2018, the respondent No.2 issued direction for demolition of the additional three rooms constructed on the ground floor of the said apartment with further direction to seal the said rooms till demolition of the same. Moreover, a penalty of Rs.1,00,000/- was also imposed upon the petitioner exercising the power under Section 428 of the Act, 2011. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal, RRDA being Misc. Appeal No. 31 of 2018. Moreover, a penalty of Rs.1,00,000/- was also imposed upon the petitioner exercising the power under Section 428 of the Act, 2011. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal, RRDA being Misc. Appeal No. 31 of 2018. Since the said Tribunal was not functional, the petitioner filed a writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 3129 of 2018 before this Court which was disposed of vide order dated 31.07.2018 staying the operation of the order passed in U.C Case No. 163 of 2015 to the extent of imposition of penalty and the order of demolition, except sealing, till the appeal preferred by the petitioner was taken up by the said Appellate Tribunal for the first time. Thereafter, the Appellate Tribunal vide order dated 02.06.2022, dismissed the said appeal directing the petitioner to deposit the penalty of Rs.1,00,000/- as per the order dated 22.05.2018 passed by the respondent No.2 and to forthwith restore the parking area with further direction to the respondent No.2 to decide the revised building plan submitted by the petitioner in accordance with law within three months, if the same was pending. 4. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, admittedly, no part of the parking area of the said apartment has either been encroached or disturbed, rather a construction has been made over a part of the ground floor which was beyond the parking space earmarked in the sanctioned plan. Such additional construction is permissible under the Building Bye-Laws, 2016 as the same is within the permissible limit of the F.A.R. The respondent No.2 was required to first consider the application of the revised building plan submitted by the petitioner and thereafter to proceed with unauthorised construction case, if the issue had survived. However, the respondent No.2 proceeded to pass an order of imposition of penalty and demolition of three rooms constructed on the ground floor of the said apartment for which revised building plan had already been submitted by the petitioner and was ready to deposit the required fee for condonation of the said deviation. 5. Per-contra, learned counsel for the respondent-RMC submits that the report of the Junior Engineer, Town Planning Section, Ranchi Municipal Corporation, Ranchi clearly suggests that the petitioner has made unauthorized construction on the ground floor of the said apartment and hence the respondent No.2 as well as the Appellate Tribunal, RRDA, Ranchi have rightly directed him to demolish the same. 5. Per-contra, learned counsel for the respondent-RMC submits that the report of the Junior Engineer, Town Planning Section, Ranchi Municipal Corporation, Ranchi clearly suggests that the petitioner has made unauthorized construction on the ground floor of the said apartment and hence the respondent No.2 as well as the Appellate Tribunal, RRDA, Ranchi have rightly directed him to demolish the same. There is no ground for compounding of the deviation pertaining to the said apartment as the same would prejudicially affect the right of the flat owners. The order of demolition of unauthorized construction cannot be said to be illegal merely on the ground that the application for revision of map of the said apartment was filed by the petitioner without proper format that too after making construction of three rooms on the ground floor. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant materials available on record. The petitioner is aggrieved with the order of demolition of three rooms constructed by him on the ground floor of the said apartment in deviation of the sanctioned plan. 7. Thrust of the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the alleged deviation is within the permissible limit of condonation and since the petitioner was ready to deposit the requisite fee for condonation of deviation, the respondent No.2 was required to first decide his application for revision of the building plan and then to proceed with U.C Case No. 163 of 2015. However, the said respondent arbitrarily passed the order of demolition of the additional construction made on the ground floor of the said apartment as well as imposed a penalty of Rs.1,00,000/- upon the petitioner. 8. It is the admitted fact that the petitioner has constructed three additional rooms on the ground floor of the said apartment in deviation of the building plan sanctioned vide B.C Case No. 591 of 2001. I have perused the order dated 02.06.2022 passed by the Appellate Tribunal, R.R.D.A, Ranchi holding inter alia that the petitioner has violated the provisions as contained in Sections 426 & 427 of the Act, 2011 as well as Clause 4.2 of the Building Bye-Laws, 2002. It has further been observed that the revised map was not properly submitted by the petitioner as was evident from the Town Planner’s report dated 16.09.2017. 9. It has further been observed that the revised map was not properly submitted by the petitioner as was evident from the Town Planner’s report dated 16.09.2017. 9. I have perused Section 426 of the Act, 2011 which provides that no person shall construct, or erect, or commence to construct any building or any structure of a permanent nature or execute any of the work relating to the construction of building including addition, alteration or modification of an existing building in any municipal area, save and except, in accordance with building regulation and until approval is accorded by competent authority of the Urban Local Bodies (U.L.B). Further, sub-section (1) of Section 427 of the Act, 2011 provides that no person shall construct, or commence to construct any building or any structure of a permanent nature or execute any work relating to construction of building or undertake any alteration, addition or modification of an existing building, unless the building plan is approved by a licensed architect. 10. Thus, it is apparently clear that any alteration in the building is not permissible, unless the approval is accorded by the competent authority. In the case in hand, the petitioner has admitted that no approval was taken before making such alteration in the apartment. Only after institution of U.C. Case No. 163 of 2015 on the complaint of the flat owners (the respondent Nos. 3 to 8 herein), the petitioner filed an application for revision of the map of the said apartment that too not in proper format. Hence, no valid application for revision of map of the said apartment can be said to be pending before the competent authority. As such, I do not find any substance in the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent No.2 has committed error in passing the impugned order dated 22.05.2018 without taking a decision on the revised map of the said apartment submitted by the petitioner. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner has put much reliance on Clause 77.3 of the Jharkhand Building Bye-Laws, 2016 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Bye-Laws, 2016’] which provides for compounding of offences in certain situations. Clause 77.3.2 provides that if development has been undertaken in deviation from the approved plan, but within the framework of the use restriction and the provisions, norms and stipulations of the Bye-Laws, 2016, then the deviation may be compounded. 12. Clause 77.3.2 provides that if development has been undertaken in deviation from the approved plan, but within the framework of the use restriction and the provisions, norms and stipulations of the Bye-Laws, 2016, then the deviation may be compounded. 12. I have also perused Clause 77.1 of the Bye-Laws, 2016 which speaks about the situations under which any deviation pertaining to unauthorized development shall not be compounded. Further, Clause 77.2 provides that subject to the provisions contained in sub bye-laws, the Authority shall have the power to determine such other circumstances under which compounding may be prohibited. 13. On conjoint reading of the aforesaid provisions, it would be evident that compounding of any deviation cannot be claimed as a matter of right, rather the Authority has the power to decide as to whether compounding may be allowed or not. The word ‘’may’’ used in Clause 77.3 of the Bye-Laws, 2016 also reflects that compounding is not mandatory, rather directory. Moreover, three additional rooms have been constructed on the ground floor of the said apartment in deviation of the sanctioned plan. Even if it is accepted that the petitioner has not encroached upon the parking area, since he had disclosed before the flat owners at the time of sale of the flats that the remaining area would be kept vacant to be used by them as common area and facilities like parking of vehicles of guests or to facilitate the movement of the vehicles in parking area etc., he by making construction in the said area, has encroached the common area and facilities which is not permissible under law. Condonation of deviation from the sanctioned building plan where the right of several persons is adversely affected, should not be allowed in a routine manner, rather the concerned authority should also keep in mind the interest of the flat owners. This Court is of the view that such practice adopted by the builders should be deprecated so as to protect the interest of the flat owners who purchase the flats after relying on the building plan sanctioned prior to the construction. 14. Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order dated 02.06.2022 passed by the Appellate Tribunal, RRDA, Ranchi in Misc. 14. Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order dated 02.06.2022 passed by the Appellate Tribunal, RRDA, Ranchi in Misc. Appeal No. 31/2018 and the order dated 22.05.2018 passed by the respondent No.2 in U.C. Case No. 163/2015 under the extraordinary writ jurisdiction. 15. The present writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.