The vacant posts of three non-official members in the panel were filled
The state government and CMDA extended the cut-off date from July 27, 1999 to July 1, 2007 and the norms were amended subsequently which were seen going against the principles of the court order. (Representational image.)
CHENNAI: After a prolonged delay and disagreements, a Madras HC-appointed monitoring committee and CMDA are working towards a consensus pertaining to action taken report (ATR) based on a August 2006 high court order on curbing menace of unauthorised constructions.
In a first positive step, the vacant posts of three non-official members in the panel were filled. The committee met on August 29 in full attendance.
S.R. Masilamani, head of department of planning, school of architecture and planning, Anna University; former vice-chairman of CMDA, R. Santhanam, and conservation architect and former secretary of Indian Institute of Architects, Tara Murali, assumed charge and hoped to stem out differences and evolve a consensus based on 15 action paras stipulated in the court order.
The ATR has become a contentious subject with non-official members expressing open dissent and disapproving the report, which they say does not comply with HC order.
N.L. Rajah, a senior advocate and counsel for M.G.Devasahayam, a non-official member, said the monitoring committee was appointed to process regularisation applications under the 1999 scheme, which was the only scheme sanctioned by the HC.
However, the state government and CMDA extended the cut-off date from July 27, 1999 to July 1, 2007 and the norms were amended subsequently which were seen going against the principles of the court order.
Can’t hide behind the Act
Sources in CMDA maintain that section 113-c of TNTand CP Act will not be a blanket relief to violations, but provides only limited solution to the development such as FSI violation not exceeding 50 per cent of the allowable limit, setback violation not exceeding 50 per cent and road width violation not exceeding 20 per cent, subject to payment of GLV depending on the violations. The activity in the building shall be in conformity to land use zoning and parking as per standards prescribed in the Development Control Rules as on July 1, 2007 or in the vicinity not exceeding a distance of 250 mtrs from the site under reference and adequate fire safety measures.
High Court criticises procedures in building regulations
While criticising the procedures adopted in building regulations and violations, the Madras HC has observed that “Do what you please for carrying on the construction without any sanction and thereafter seek to regularise whatever you can” is the trend for construction all over the state.
“To our mind, it is a matter of major concern that rampant unauthorised construction went on without even planning permission being obtained and post facto approval was sought. We are saying so as it is time for the state government to have review of the statutory provisions, in view of rampant misuse. Construction in the absence of planning permission should face only one consequence — demolition. The statutory provisions which permit sanction after illegality committed are best removed as violation is becoming order of the day. Unless violator feels the pinch of his misdeed, we see no hope of any discipline being maintained in this behalf”.
The first Bench of Chief Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice T.S. Sivagnanam, made the observation when a petition filed by social activist ‘Traffic’ Ramaswamy came up for hearing.
( Source : deccan chronicle )
Next Story
