The court emphasized the importance of verifying sanctioned plans and held that set back violations cannot be regularized.

S. Vaidyanathan, J.

The petitioner has come forward with the above Writ Petition praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents 2 and 3 and their men to stop all further demolition of the petitioner's house at Plot No.3, Old Door No.46, New Door No.48, West Namachivayapuram, Choolaimedu, Chennai-600 090.

2. The case of the petitioner is that he has constructed the building in accordance with the plan. But according to the Corporation of Chennai, there is violation of the plan and there is no set back left by the petitioner while constructing the building in question. It is the further case of the petitioner that under the complaint given by the fourth respondent, action has been initiated.

3. From the records, it is clear that even the building belonging to the fourth respondent is also in violation of the plan. When this was pointed out to the Corporation's counsel, it is fairly conceded by him that if the buildings in the area are constructed in violation of the plan and without any set back, proper steps will be taken for demolition of the same.

4. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

5. A Division Bench of this Court, by order dated 10.02.2017 in W.P. No. 6109 of 2013, has considered the construction made therein in violation of the plan and the relevant paragraphs are extracted hereunder:

"5. The Secretary, Housing and Urban Development Department, Secretariat, Fort St. George, Chennai is impleaded as respondent No.2 in this petition. Memo of parties be amended accordingly. Mr. M.K. Subramanian, learned Government Pleader accepts notice for the said respondent.

6. We also find there are set back violations in the building, apart from floor violations. The set back violations are not capable of being cured as per the Master Plan, as observed by us in a series of orders."

6. Similarly, in yet another judgment, dated 08.11.2016 in W.P. No. 18777 of 2014, this Court held as follows:

"6. Firstly, the purpose of issuing notice calling upon the private party to submit a sanctioned plan is to verify the position qua the sanction. This is stated to be so as, if the building is more than the second floor construction, sanction would have been granted by the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority/respondent No.1, while in any other case, by the Chennai Corporation. Thus, if the plan sanctioned is only upto the second floor, but actually the construction is of more than second floor, though CMDA may issue notice, it would not have any sanctioned plan as such and the sanctioned plan would be only with the Corporation. This being the objective, we do follow the said process, but then, if the authority states that it has no sanctioned plan available (indicated who sanctioned it) or fails to produce the sanctioned plan, then the concerned authorities must look into its own records and interact with the Corporation to verify the position of the sanctioned plan before issuing the locking and sealing notice. We say so as a number of writ petitions are being filed only because of non-production of the sanctioned plan, burdening the docket of this Court. We believe that if this process is followed, no cause of action would arise to approach the Court, as the authority would have verified from the records, whether it be of the CMDA/respondent No.1 or Corporation/respondent No.2, as to the legality of the construction.

7. We clarify that this in no manner absolves the obligation of the private parties from producing the sanctioned plan. But this is only a preliminary measure before the authorities to take the final action.

8. We may also note with concern that the non-disposal of the interim applications pending the appeals and the Special Revision Petitions filed under Section 80-A of the Act is another area where petitions are filed before this Court for obtaining interim stay. If these interim applications are promptly dealt with, the occasion for the same would not arise. As to how there coul