Case Note & Summary
The writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was filed before the Madras High Court challenging an order dated 14.05.2024 by the Additional Secretary (Technical), Housing and Urban Development Department, which rejected the petitioner's application for three months time to produce records regarding the regularization of a building at Door No.20, Pugalendi Street, M.G.R.Nagar, Chennai. The petitioner claimed to have been allotted three plots by the Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board, now Tamil Nadu Urban Habitat Development Board, and asserted that he had obtained regularization under a government scheme notified under Section 113-A of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 for buildings constructed before 28.02.1999. He contended that he could not produce the regularization order due to a fire accident in 2009, and the rejection of his time request was arbitrary. The Greater Chennai Corporation and the government respondents opposed the petition, stating that the building was wholly unauthorized, having been constructed in 2005 without any building plan permission, and assessed to property tax only from 2006. It consisted of ground plus two floors used as a mansion/lodge with 32 rooms, and seriously violated the Tamil Nadu Combined Development and Building Rules, 2019 regarding setback, FSI, and parking, making the violations non-rectifiable. The 1999 regularization scheme itself had been quashed by the High Court in 2006, and the petitioner had produced no documentary evidence of regularization; the tax receipts he relied upon pertained to a much smaller prior structure and not the present building. The revisional authority under Section 80-A had already passed a detailed order on 04.04.2024 rejecting the revision, which remained unchallenged. The court, after examining the submissions and the findings of the revisional authority, held that the petitioner had failed to prove his case despite ample opportunities. It noted that a mere oral statement was insufficient, and the contradictions in his own complaint to the police regarding the fire accident further weakened his claim. The court heavily relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Rajendra Kumar Barjatya v. U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad, which emphatically stated that unauthorized constructions cannot be perpetuated and must be demolished, and that courts should not protect such illegality. Applying these principles, the High Court concluded that the rejection of the time application was proper and the actions of the respondents were in accordance with law. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed, finding no infirmity in the impugned order.
Headnote
A) Town and Country Planning - Unauthorized Construction - Building Permit - Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971, Sections 80-A, 113-A - A building constructed without any plan permission is wholly unauthorized; the mere assessment of property tax does not regularize it. The authority's findings that the construction violated setback, FSI, and parking norms, making it non-rectifiable, were upheld. (Paras 3-4, 7-8) B) Evidence - Burden of Proof - Regularization Claim - Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971, Section 113-A - To claim regularization under a scheme for buildings completed before a cutoff date, the applicant must produce documentary evidence; oral statements and property tax receipts for a smaller prior structure are insufficient. Failure to adduce such proof despite opportunities justifies dismissal of the claim. (Paras 2, 5-8) C) Constitutional Law - Judicial Review - Unauthorized Construction - Article 226 of the Constitution of India - The court reiterates the Supreme Court's dictum that unauthorized constructions must be dealt with strictly and cannot be protected under the guise of equity or delay. Citing Rajendra Kumar Barjatya v. U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad, the court held that illegal constructions must be demolished, and authorities' actions in line with the Act and Rules are not infirm. (Paras 9-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the first respondent's order dated 14.05.2024 rejecting the petitioner's request for time to produce records pertaining to regularization of an unauthorized building was arbitrary, unreasonable and violated the principles of natural justice, warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the rejection order dated 14.05.2024 and the actions of the respondents. The petitioner failed to produce any evidence to prove regularization, and the construction was found to be wholly unauthorized and in violation of rules. The court reiterated that unauthorized constructions must be demolished, and the authorities acted in accordance with law.
Law Points
- Legal points not extracted
- Unauthorized constructions cannot be legitimized by passage of time or inaction of authorities
- burden of proof lies on the applicant to show regularization
- mere oral statements insufficient
- building without plan permission is wholly unauthorized
- demolition of illegal structures is mandatory
