Skip to main content

HC slams regularising unauthorised constructions

The Madras High Court Bench here has disapproved of the practice of courts sympathising with people who purchase land earmarked for public purposes, such as schools and parks in approved residential plot layouts, construct buildings and then seek regularisation of the unauthorised constructions.

In a judgment reserved here and delivered in the Principal Seat of the High Court in Chennai, a Division Bench of Justices V. Ramasubramanian and N. Kirubakaran said: “The history of unlawful constructions in the State of Tamil Nadu presents a very depressing picture, encouraged by repeated ordinances allowing regularisation of unauthorised constructions.

“Unfortunately, when the law-enforcing agencies occasionally wake up and take action for demolition, the courts are compelled to take a sympathetic view on the ground that persons belonging to lower middle class have purchased those plots with the financial assistance rendered by banks and that they will suddenly be thrown to the streets. Such misplaced sympathy has encouraged lawlessness...”

The observations were made following a writ petition filed by Karur District Vengamedu Kongu Nagar Residents’ Welfare Association alleging unauthorised sale of 12.97 acres meant for public purposes in 1983.

Public purposes

Finding that the promoter of the layout, P. Cheralathan, had been selling away the land meant for public purposes too for long, the judges said the Executive Officer of Inam Karur Municipality had written a letter to him in 2002 to hand over the entire 12.97 acres.

In May 2005, the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board was also requested not to give power connection to buildings constructed on the land.

“However, interestingly, something very peculiar has happened thereafter. The original layout sketch, which ought to be available in the office of the Municipality, seems to have disappeared… Even the Director of Town and Country Planning took a stand in a letter addressed to the State Information Commissioner in 2007 that the original approved layout sketch was not available in his office.

Thrown into dustbin

“Therefore, it is clear that the respondents have thrown the entire provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act into the dustbin. The original promoter of the layout has also made false averments in his affidavit as though he had nothing to do with the layout, though the records show that he applied for the approval of the layout in his name,” the judges said.

Pointing out that the present case was filed in 2011, the judges said even as the case was pending in the court, the municipality had passed a resolution in 2013 to regularise the unauthorised constructions in the layout.

Then, the municipal chairman and councillors had purchased plots in the same layout.

The Division Bench ordered constitution of a high-level committee headed by a Joint Director of Town and Country Planning, with a track record of the highest level of integrity, to conduct a thorough enquiry and submit a report in the court by August first week.

In the meantime, the municipality was restrained from either granting building plan approval or regularisation of buildings already constructed on the land.

Electricity connections should also not be given to buildings constructed on the land, the Bench ordered.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

MACT - Permanent disability - calculate - compensation - Supreme Court - Part 2

1) C. K. Subramonia Iyer vs. T. Kunhikuttan Nair - AIR 1970 SC 376 2) R. D. Hattangadi vs. Pest Control (India) Ltd. - 1995 (1) SCC 551 3) Baker vs. Willoughby - 1970 AC 467 4) Arvind Kumar Mishra v. New India Assurance Co.Ltd. - 2010(10) SCALE 298 5) Yadava Kumar v. D.M., National Insurance Co. Ltd. - 2010 (8) SCALE 567) 5. The heads under which compensation is awarded in personal injury cases are the following : Pecuniary damages (Special Damages) (i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines, transportation, nourishing food, and miscellaneous expenditure. (ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured would have made had he not been injured, comprising : (a) Loss of earning during the period of treatment; (b) Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability. (iii) Future medical expenses. Non-pecuniary damages (General Damages) (iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries. (v) Loss of amen

Distinction between “Loss to the Estate” and “Loss of Estate”

A subtle but fundamental distinction between “Loss of Estate” and “Loss to the Estate” was discussed in Omana P.K. and others v. Francis Edwin and others (2011 (4) KLT 952). This Judgment was challenged before the Apex Court, which has now dismissed the Appeal. The question raised in this case, was whether a certain sum which the dependants received as compensation for untimely death of Judgment debtor in a motor accident is attachable in Execution Proceedings. In this case, Justice Thomas P. Joseph speaking for the Kerala High Court had held the following (relying on The Chairman, A.P.S.R.T.C, Hyderabad vs. Smt. Shafiya Khatoon and Others) Capitalized value of the income spent on the dependents, subject to relevant deductions, is the pecuniary loss sustained by the members of his family through his death. The capitalized value of his income, subject to relevant deductions, would be the loss caused to the estate by his death. In other words, what amount the dependents would have got le

Full & Final payment - No dues certificate - end of contract

Whether after the contract comes to an end by completion of the contract work and acceptance of the final bill in full and final satisfaction and after issuance a `No Due Certificate' by the contractor Supreme Court of India Supreme Court of India R.L. Kalathia & Co. vs State Of Gujarat on 14 January, 2011 Author: P Sathasivam Bench: P. Sathasivam, B.S. Chauhan IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3245 OF 2003 R.L. Kalathia & Co Appellant(s) Versus State of Gujarat .... Respondent(s) JUDGMENT P. Sathasivam, J. 1) This appeal is directed against the judgment and final order dated 07.10.2002 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Gujarat whereby the High Court set aside the judgment and decree dated 14.12.1982 passed by the Civil Judge, (S.D.), Jamnagar directing the State Government to pay a sum of Rs.2,27,758/- with costs and interest and dismissed the Civil Suit as well as cross objections filed by the a