Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

5 The 1st respondent has filed a counter affidavit, refuting the averments made in the writ petition and would submit that consequent upon the rejection orders, the officials of the 2nd respondent had issued the lock and seal notice and demolition notice of the above building, wherein deviations and violations with reference to the approved plan has been observed and noted down the deviations and violations. The regularisation application was rejected on 02.02.2017 on the ground that the particulars furnished were examined and found to have not furnished any credible evidence as prescribed by this Court vide order dated 23.08.2016 and therefore, the petitioner was called upon to furnish additional evidence within fifteen days from the date of the letter of the 2nd respondent dated 21.12.2016 and despite that, the petitioner did not furnish any materials and after considering the application with the available particulars, it was found that the regularisation application does not satisfy the orders passed by this Court dated 23.08.2016 and 05.12.2016 respectively and therefore, it was rejected.

6 The 2nd respondent / CMDA has filed a counter affidavit and they would aver that the deviated construction of the commercial building comprising of Basement Floor + Ground Floor + 3 Floors + 4th Floor [part] for Hotel use exists at new Door No.56, 56-A, S.No.81/1, Block No.108B, TS.No.6869/1, Thirumalai Pillai Street, T.Nagar, Chennai-17 and based on the representation submitted by one Mr.Murali, on 16.06.2015, alleging large scale violation and putting up of unauthorised construction, the said premises was inspected by the officials of the 2nd respondent / CMDA on 06.08.2015 and a notice calling for approve plan was issued on 06.08.2015 to the petitioner  owner of the building and in response to the same, the owner / petitioner has furnished the copy of the approve plan along with his letter dated 09.08.2015 and also stated that the regularisation application submitted by the earlier owner, viz., M/s.Bommidala Realty Limited, under Regularisation Scheme of the year 2002 on 29.06.2002, has been rejected. It is further averred by the 2nd respondent / CMDA that the 2nd respondent has issued planning permission for the proposed construction of Basement Floor + Ground Floor + 3 Floors, Departmental Store-cum-Residential building with 7 dwelling units in Planning Permission dated 03.05.1999 in favour of M.Kumbesulu, General Power of Attorney of M/s.Bommidala Realty Limited, and having noted the violation, the Greater Chennai Corporation, had issued Stop Work Notice and also called upon the petitioner to produce the approved plan and also issued the lock and seal notice and demolition notice dated 26.08.2015 under section 56 and 67 of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971. One more representation has been received from Mr.T.Saravanan, Advocate, on 16.06.2015, to take action against the unauthorised construction.

10 This Court paid its anxious consideration and best attention to the rival submissions and carefully scanned and analysed the materials placed before it.

11 As per the counter affidavit of the 2nd respondent, they issued the planning permission to M/s.Bommidala Realty Limited for the proposed construction of Basement Floor + Ground Floor + 3 Floors, Departmental store-cum-Residential Building with 7 dwelling units in Planning Permission No.B/26377/121/99 in Letter No.B1/23227/98 dated 03.05.1999 in favour of the General Power of Attorney of the said Promoter and after receipt of various representations, the building was inspected and the following deviations were noted:-

19 It is also relevant to consider some of the judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India dealing with unauthorised constructions.

[a] In Friends Colony Development Committee Vs. State of Orissa and others reported in 2004 [8] SCC 733, the issue relating to the unauthorised construction and regularisation of the same by levying compounding fees, came up for consideration and it is relevant to extract the following :-

20 The pleadings, documents and other material brought on record disclose a very sorry and sordid state of affairs prevailing in the matter of illegal and unauthorized constructions in the city of Cuttack. Builders violate with impunity the sanctioned building plans and indulge deviations much to the prejudice of the planned development of the city and at the peril of the occupants of the premises constructed or of the inhabitants of the city at large. Serious threat is posed to ecology and environment and, at the same time, the infrastructure consisting of water supply, sewerage and traffic movement facilities suffer unbearable burden and are often thrown out of gear. Unwary purchasers in search of roof over their heads and purchasing flats/apartments from builders, find themselves having fallen prey and become victims to the design of unscrupulous builders. The builder conveniently walks away having pocketed the money leaving behind the unfortunate occupants to face the music in the event of unauthorized constructions being detected or exposed and threatened with demolition. Though the local authorities have the staff consisting of engineers and inspectors whose duty is to keep a watch on building activities and to promptly stop the illegal constructions or deviations coming up, they often fail in discharging their duty. Either they don't act or do not act promptly or do connive at such activities apparently for illegitimate considerations. If such activities are to stop, some stringent actions are required to be taken by ruthlessly demolishing the illegal constructions and non-compoundable deviations. The unwary purchasers who shall be the sufferers must be adequately compensated by the builder. The arms of the law must stretch to catch hold of such unscrupulous builders. At the same time, in order to secure vigilant performance of duties, responsibility should be fixed on the officials whose duty it was to prevent unauthorized constructions, but who failed in doing so either by negligence or by connivance.