Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

"Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order dated 07.11.2017 passed in WMP.No.30495/2017 passed by the Madras High Court.

We are not inclined to interfere in the impugned order and accordingly, the Special Leave Petition is dismissed.

However, we direct the authority concerned before whom the application for regularisation under the DTCP Building Regularisation Scheme 2017 is pending to decide the matter in accordance with law within two months.

Pending application stands disposed of."

Thus, in the said order dated 05.01.2018, the Supreme Court directed that the authority concerned before whom the application for regularisation under the DTCP Building Regularisation Scheme, 2017, is pending, to decide the matter in accordance with law within two months.

4. In this case, it is seen that there is no proper set-back left by the fourth respondent while constructing the building. There is also no proper ventilation as required under Rule 14(2) of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Building Rules, 1972. The fourth respondent has combined both the buildings as single unit without the permission from the Attur Municipality.

8. Since the building constructed comes within the purview of the Deputy Director of Town and Country Planning, Chennai and beyond the limit of the Municipality, again, the Municipality issued the deviation notices under Sections 205(1)(2) and 205(3) of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, 1920, on 14.08.2014 and 25.08.2014 respectively, and the fact was intimated to the Deputy Director of Town and Country Planning, Salem in R.O.C.No.3930/2014/F1, dated 13.11.2014. After receipt of the letter, the Deputy Director of Town and Country Planning, Salem, did not agree with the request of the fourth respondent and issued Lock and Seal Notice under Sections 56 and 57 of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 to the fourth respondent on 17.11.2014. Now, the building owner/fourth respondent submitted an application under the Unauthorised Building Regularisation Scheme, 2017 on 11.07.2017, under G.O.(Ms).No.110, Housing and Urban Development Department, dated 22.07.2017 to the Deputy Director of Town and Country Planning, Salem, through the Attur Municipality. The above building regularisation application was forwarded to Deputy Director of Town and Country Planning, Salem on 21.08.2017. Further, a letter was written from Attur Municipality to the Deputy Director of Town and Country Planning, Salem on 05.09.2017 requesting to take immediate action of locking and sealing the illegally constructed building, as per the notice already served by the Deputy Director of Town and Country Planning, Salem on 13.11.2014 as earlier as possible.

12. Moreover, the Apex Court time and again observed that the time of regularisation cannot be periodically extended. Since there is an observation made in this regard with regard to the fourth respondent's building, and that as stated supra, the Apex Court, by order dated 05.01.2018, has permitted the authorities to consider the application for regularisation of the building of the fourth respondent in terms of the DTCP Building Regularisation Scheme 2017, it is open for the authority concerned to consider the same by taking note of the above decisions of the Apex Court, more particularly with regard to the set back maintenance, proper ventilation, parking space, Open Space Reserve (OSR), etc., by following the provisions of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act/Rules thereunder and the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act/Rules thereunder.