Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

9.In the present case, it is seen from the pleadings as narrated above that the building in question, which was purchased and in occupation of the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis petitioners herein, was constructed by the third respondent / builder after obtaining planning permission and building approval, as per which, they were entitled to put up a construction of stilt plus first and second floors and the proposal was to put up six residential units in both the floors. However, contrary to the same, they had made additional construction in the third floor consisting of three residential units unauthorisedly and also sold the same to the petitioners numbering 9. According to the petitioners, without the knowledge of the deviations / unauthorised construction in the subject building, they have purchased the residential units in good faith for valuable consideration through loan from the financial institutions and they have nothing to do with the illegal act done by the third respondent / builder. They further submitted that without considering any of the ground reality, the respondent officials issued de-occupation notice to them and hence, they made representation requesting them to grant time to rectify the deviations made in the subject building and regularisation of the construction.

19.Applying the parameters laid down by this Court as well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decisions mentioned supra to the present case, wherein, the petitioners sought an interim order forbearing the respondent authorities from taking coercive steps, so as to enable them to rectify and restore the subject building in consonance with the permissible planning rules and regulations, within a period of six months, this court is of the opinion that https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis the practice of putting up an illegal construction and subsequently seek for regularisation or rectification should not be encouraged as it would give a wrong impression that a building can be unauthorisedly constructed and later, defects could be rectified. In such cases, the plea for regularisation or rectification should not be entertained either as a matter of course or routine and it should be considered sparingly and reasonably. If it is shown that an unauthorised construction has been put up, it should be ordered to be demolished, thereby indicating a strong warning signal to the perpetrators of such offences. It is trite law that the respondent authorities should take action for the services rendered to the public, whereas in the instant case, after so many litigations, at the instance of the complainant, who is the neighbour of the subject building, the officials have taken action in accordance with law. In many cases, they failed to do so promptly and appropriately; and the completion certificate issued by the authorities is, without proper verification of the actual status of the building, whether there is deviation / unauthorised construction. Further, as evident from the memo filed on the side of the respondent authorities, 847 appeal petitions in Chennai south region and 1581 appeal petitions in respect of Chennai north and Central Region, are pending consideration before the Government, without any progress. Such being the present scenario, this court, in order to sort out the same, issues the following https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis directions to the respondent authorities:

(i) Before issuing the building planning permission, an undertaking be obtained from the builder/applicant, as the case may be, to the effect that possession of the building will be entrusted and/or handed over to the owners/beneficiaries only after obtaining completion certificate from the authorities concerned.
(ii) Upon conducing personal inspection and being satisfied that the building is constructed in accordance with the building planning permission given and there is no deviation in such construction in any manner, the completion certificate in respect of residential / commercial building, be issued by the authority concerned to the parties concerned, without causing undue delay. If any deviation is noticed, action must be taken in accordance with the Act and the process of issuance of completion certificate should be deferred, unless and until the deviations pointed out are completely rectified.

The officials have seldom initiated proceedings by invoking the Act, that too after complaints are given by neighbour or by the person aggrieved by such unauthorised construction in any manner. In most of the cases, buildings are not constructed as per the building planning permission and they are constructed by flouting the building norms, as a result, the concept of planned development becomes a day dream. Unless there is strict enforcement with respect to building norms by identifying the unauthorised construction or https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis deviation at the earliest point of time, before the beneficiaries or owners of the building take possession, it will be difficult for the Courts to issue directives against the parties, who purchase the same for valuable consideration through bank loans, without the knowledge of the deviations in the construction of the building. Therefore, this court, having regard to the need of the hour, issues the aforesaid directions.