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 ...

SARFAESI-Right of tenant/lessee - Supreme Court

Cited: 1)  M/s Trade Well, a Proprietorship Firm, Mumbai & Anr. v. Indian Bank & Anr. [2007 CRI. L.J. 2544]   2)  C.B. Gautam v. Union of India & Ors. [(1993) 1 SCC 78] 3)  ICICI Bank Ltd. v. SIDCO Leathers Ltd. & Ors. [(2006) 10 SCC 452] 4) D elhi High Court in Shri Sanjeev Bansal v. Oman International Bank SAOG & Anr. 131 (2006) DLT 729  5) Madras High Court in Sree Lakshmi Products v. State Bank of India (AIR 2007 Madras 148) 6)  Sunita Jugalkishore Gilda v. Ramalal Udhoji Tanna (dead) through LRs. & Ors. [(2013) 10 SCC 258], Supreme Court 7)  Central Bank of India v. State of Kerala and Others [(2009) 4 SCC 94], Supreme Court  8) Authorised Officer, Indian Overseas Bank and Another v. Ashok Saw Mill [(2009) 8 SCC 366] , Supreme Court 9) United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon & Others [(2010) 8 SCC 110] , Supreme Court   10)  Oriental Bank of Commerce in Civil Appeal arising out of S.L.P. (C) ...

An order of attachment before judgment ends if a suit is dismissed

An order of attachment before judgment passed under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 of the Code will not survive the dismissal of a suit and it ends when the suit is dismissed after trial. Contents 1 (i) Whether an order of attachment before judgment under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“the Code”, for short) made in a suit for recovery of money will survive the dismissal of the suit on merits? 2 (ii) If the appellate court reverses the decree of the trial court and allows the suit claim, will it result in an automatic revival of the order of attachment before judgment? 3 (iii) Whether the ratio in the decision by Full Bench in Thampi Muhammad Abdul Kadir v. Padmanabha Pillai Parameswaran Pillai (1952 KLT 264) holds good in view of the change in the precedential law and insertion of Order XXXVIII Rule 11A to the Code? 3.1 “11A. Provisions applicable to attachment.- 3.2 “57. Determination of attachment.- 3.3 Arumuhom Ammal v. Nayanar Panicker (1962 KLT 264) 3.4...