Unauthorized constructions cannot be legitimized without proper proof, and courts are mandated to enforce compliance strictly with planning laws.

ORDER :

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.

Under assail is the order dated 14.05.2024 rejecting the application submitted by the writ petitioner seeking three months time to produce the records pertaining to the commercial building put up at Door No.20, Pugalendi Street, M.G.R.Nagar, Chennai 600 078. Pertinently, the revisional order dated 04.04.2024 passed by the first respondent under Section 80 -A of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 has not been challenged in the present writ proceedings.

2. The petitioner states that he was allotted three plots by the Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board, now renamed as Tamil Nadu Urban Habitat Development Board. The learned counsel for the petitioner Ms.Vasudha Thiagarajan would submit that the petitioner has obtained an order of regularization pursuant to the scheme notified by the Government under Section 113 -A of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act and the buildings constructed prior to 28.02.1999, were regularized under the said scheme. However, the petitioner was not able to produce the order of regularization, since there was a fire accident in the said property at M.G.R.Nagar and First Information Report has been registered. The time sought for by the petitioner to produce the documents was also rejected. Thus the present writ petition came to be instituted.

3. The learned Standing Counsel for the Greater Chennai Corporation would submit that the building constructed by the petitioner is wholly unauthorized. There is no building plan permission at all. The petitioner has not produced any document to establish that the unauthorized constructions were regularized by the competent authority, despite the fact that several complaints were received and opportunities were provided to the petitioner. Except prolonging the matter, the petitioner has not filed any proof to establish that the unauthorized construction was regularized under the scheme, which would be applicable only to the constructions made prior to 28.02.1999. It is further contended that the subject building was constructed in the year 2006 and property tax assessment was also made in the year 2006. Thus the unsubstantiated statement of the petitioner that the unauthorized construction was regularized, deserves no further consideration.

4. The learned Special Government Pleader Mr.T.Chandrasekaran would oppose by stating that the erstwhile Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board allotted three plots to the petitioner. The tax receipt details are available only from the year 2006 in the Corporation records. The existing ground plus two floors building is used as Mansion/Lodge with 32 rooms, which is totally unauthorized. The violations are not rectifiable, as it abuts the road on two sides and has been constructed without leaving front set back which is required as per rules. The existing building violates the Tamil Nadu Combined Development and Building Rules, 2019 in terms of set back spaces all around the building, FSI, parking, etc. It is further contended that the regularization scheme of 1999 was quashed by the High Court vide order dated 23.08.2006. The petitioner has not produced any evidence to establish that the unauthorized constructions were regularized under the erstwhile scheme. Therefore, the present writ petition is to be rejected. The counter affidavit filed by the first respondent reveals that the building assessed for tax is for a much smaller floor area that existed prior to this building and does not pertain to the present building, which appears to be constructed in the year 2005 and assessed for property tax