Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

The Government Order further reads that the Director of Town and Country Planning, Member Secretary, M.M.D.A. are requested to ensure that for the reasons stated in the Government Order, no layout for any building construction is approved in respect of the areas beyond the limit referred to in item 1 of the said Government Order. Learned Counsel have emphasised that in the Government Order, the Government has taken a decision that there should not be any approval of lay out for any building referred to in item 1 i,e. there should not be any acquisition of land in Thiruvanmiyur Village Neighbourhood Schemes, Learned counsel have vehemently argued that in all the cases, the petitioners have not sought for the approval of the layout and the petitioners have sought permission only to take additional construction to the present buildings. Learned counsel have argued that the word 'layout' is not defined under the Town and Country Planning Act. They have brought to the notice of this Court, the scheme evolved by the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority called as 'Building Regularisation Scheme', wherein the Government has proposed to regularise the unauthorised constructions prescribing the regularisation fee rates. In the above scheme, the word 'layout' has been defined as division of land into plots exceeding eight in numbers. Relying upon the above definition, learned counsel for the petitioner have argued that as per G.6.Ms.No. 190 the. respondent Authority has taken a decision not to approve any lay put for any building construction. They have argued that there is no ban as such for construction of the independent buildings. The ban is applicable only to the layouts where there is a large area which is divisible into plots exceeding eight in numbers . Learned counsel have argued that demolition notices have been issued with reference to the above G.O.Ms.No. 190 and there is no ban as such in G.O.Ms.No. 190 for construction of the independent buildings. The said Government Order is not applicable to the construction put up by the petitioners as the petitioners are not seeking the approval of the layouts. The impugned notices are liable to be quashed as they have been issued under the misconception of the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act. Advancing the above arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners have sought for quashing of the impugned notices.

6. In most of the cases, the petitioners have filed the Writ miscellaneous petition seeking a direction to the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority to receive the applications for regularisation in view of the building regularisation scheme as the Writ petitions are pending before this court. By order dated 13.4.1999, this court granted an interim direction to the respondent Chennai Metropolitan development Authority to receive the applications and not to pass final orders pending disposal of the Writ Petition.

However it is made clear that as the petitioners have constructed the buildings without prior sanction of the Authorities, they are entitled to seek the regularisation of the constructions as per the Building Regularisation Scheme. In view of the interim orders already passed by this court on 13.4.1999, the respondents are directed to pass final orders on the application of the petitioners who have applied as per the Building Regularisation Scheme.