Govt Cannot Routinely Regularise Unauthorised Buildings By Invoking Exemption Under Town & Country Planning Act: Madras High Court

“Regularization of unauthorized construction cannot be claimed as an absolute right. It is a concession granted as an one-time measure through special schemes. The Government is not expected to regularize the unauthorized buildings in a routine manner by invoking the provisions of exemption under the Town and Country Planning Act. The very purpose and object of the building plan permission at no circumstances be allowed to be defeated,” the court observed.

The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice K Rajasekar observed that if such routine regularisation is allowed, the very purpose of building plan permission would be defeated. The court added that illegal constructions not only caused environmental damage but also posed a threat to the safety and security of the neighbors and citizens living nearby. The court thus added that the government could not be a mute spectator in such cases which are causing inconvenience to the people.

“Power to grant exemption is an exception and cannot be exercised in a routine manner to legalise the illegal constructions. Illegal constructions are not only causing environmental damages, but also posing a threat to the safety and security of the neighbours and the citizens who are all residing in the particular locality. The road users are also suffering on account of such illegal constructions. The Government is not expected to be a mute spectator in respect of all such illegal constructions which are causing greater inconvenience to the people living in that locality,” the court said.

The court also added that merely because the builder had invested an amount in the property, the court could not show any leniency of misplaced sympathy. The court added that due to the large-scale collusion on the part of CMDA, the Corporation and other competent authorities, the builders are emboldened to commit such crimes at the cost of the people with the hope that they can escape the clutches of proceedings by submitting regularisation applications. 

"The builders and contractors are emboldened to commit such illegalities at the cost of the people with the fond hope that they can escape from the clutches of proceedings or by submitting regularization application, they can avoid any demolition of the unauthorized construction. They are emboldened because of large scale collusion on the part of the officials of CMDA, Corporation and other competent authorities under various enactments for their omissions, commissions, inactions and lapses," the court said.

The court was hearing a petition filed by Janpriya Builders challenging the order of Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority (CMDA) directing the removal of their unauthorized structure at Pondy Bazaar, Chennai, and to regularise it. CMDA challenged the plea and argued that the large-scale unauthorized construction by the company could not be brushed aside.

The court noted that the petitioner had constructed the commercial building in violation of the approved plan and though applications were filed seeking regularisation of the unauthorised construction, it was rejected by the CMDA. After rejecting the regularisation application, the CMDA issued a locking sealing and demolition notice and the unauthorized area was locked and sealed. The company filed an appeal under Section 80-A of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act before the Government but the order was rejected. While rejecting the order, the government informed that the multi-storeyed commercial building was constructed with large-scale deviation/violation.

The court noted that the order of removal was passed pursuant to the appellate order passed by the Government under Section 80-A of the Town and Country Planning Act and the issues had reached finality. The court added that there was no impediment for the CMDA to proceed with the demolition of unauthorized construction and directed the authorities to demolish the unauthorised portions of the construction within 8 weeks.

Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. Ashok Menon

Counsel for Respondent: Mr. A. Arun Babu Standing Counsel for GCC Mr. R. Sivakumar Standing Counsel for CMDA

Case Title: M/s Janpriya Builders v. The Commissioner, Greater Chennai Corporation

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 65

Case No: W.P.No.17011 of 2024