regularisation. Further, when the Petitioner again applied for regularisation Reg. Scheme 2001 dated 22.11.2001, the same was refused on 02.04.2002 since the construction ... However, in the interregnum, the Petitioner approached the 2nd Respondent for regularisation of construction, but it was rejected assigning reasons to the effect that
them to get regularisation of their building pursuant to the Hon'ble Justice Rajeswaran Committee recommendation regarding regularisation of unauthorised construction put up before ... them to get regularisation of their building pursuant to the Hon'ble Justice Rajeswaran Committee recommendation regarding regularisation of unauthorised construction put up before
2014 dated 05.02.2016, till the disposal of the application for regularisation of the construction carried out in the building of the petitioner at Door ... February 2016, till the disposal of the application for regularisation of the construction carried out in the petitioner's building at Door
make the payment of balance regularisation fee and further directed the authorities to consider the question of regularisation in accordance with law.
2.According ... second respondent-CMDA to accept the balance regularisation fee only in relation to the construction upto the extent of Ground + Five Floors. For this purpose
petitioners' representation dated 27 August 2015 to regularise the construction of their residential flat in the premises at basement floor ... Court, the flat was de-sealed. On 27 August 2015, seeking regularisation of construction of their flat, they submitted a representation to the second respondent
Municipal Corporation and others ), the issue relating to unauthorised construction by compounding of the illegal construction by paying compounding fee, came up for consideration ... above decisions of the Supreme Court before granting any regularisation of the construction of the building/for building planning permission
made application on 31.10.2000 for regularisation of the building despite the fact that as on that date the construction had not even commenced shows that ... questioned before this Court, the entire construction is in violation. Payment of fine amount cannot justify the regularisation. If the place meant for car parking
that there was a construction in violation
of the Plans and regularisation has been sought under Section 113
C of the Tamil Nadu Town ... present case on hand,
regularisation does not arise as the building construction has been
demolished to the extent of violation in view of the order
Second Respondent/CMDA through online towards Regularisation charges of unapproved building. However, the Regularisation orders are yet to be passed by the CMDA Authorities ... obtained the Building Permission for the construction of entire building and also had put up the Additional Construction, despite the Application for permission being returned
Executed] and after compounding the
offence of excess Coverage / FAR and unauthorised construction /
http://www.judis.nic.in
35
deviation, as per the Puducherry Building ... compounding charges for the
violation of excess F.A.R. and unauthorised construction on 20.11.2017
and the same was remitted on 21.11.2017 and that
