CMDA goof-up leads to usurping of government land

Chennai: An inexplicable bureaucratic faux pas by the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority (CMDA) allowed a property developer to construct high value apartments on 10.32 acres of government land in Maraimalai Nagar.

In CMDA records accessed by DC, it has emerged that in 2004 the planning authority paved the way for two ‘owners’ to transfer lands in Thirukatchur village to the developer, though the actual owner of the land was the State government.

Interestingly, this fact was brought to light when, in 2012, a second builder approached the CMDA asking for a No Objection Certificate (NOC) to develop 67 cents of the same government land parcel only for the latter to reject the proposal.

In the meantime, the first developer had obtained plan and building permit from the Directorate of Town and Country Planning and the local municipality, and proceeded to construct 17 multi storied buildings with 478 dwelling units in the corridor located between Ford factory and Mahindra World City.

The land in question is part of land parcels acquired by the government for its Maraimalai Nagar New Town project. In 1987, the government issued a G.O.497 excluding 25.92 acres from acquisition although it followed that up by issuing another G.O.134 in 1998 cancelling the exclusion, meaning the land was still government property.

“When the two persons claiming to be land owners requested issue of NOC for 10.5 acres in 2004, they conveniently did not mention G.O.134 in the application. The Authority cleared it citing G.O. 497 which meant there was no need for an NOC,” said a CMDA official, requesting anonymity.

Officials added that the goof up happened because a basic fact checking of land ownership did not happen. “It could also be that money played a role in this. Still, if two people approach you for an NOC after mentioning a G.O. that makes obtaining an NOC unnecessary, it should have raised suspicions,” a former CMDA official remarked. Senior CMDA officials were unavailable for comment.

How it happened

According to former CMDA officials, the notification for acquisition of lands from seven villages, including Thriukatchur, for formation of Maraimalai Nagar Satellite Township, under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquistion Act, 1894 was given out in the 1970s.

“This was when there was no time period specified for acquisition under the Act. In 1984, the Act was amended to include a two-year time frame for acquiring land following publication of declaration that follows the notification. Since the state government had several pending declarations and notifications for acquisitions at that time, revenue agencies and government departments worked in  a tizzy passing Awards,” said a retired CMDA official, preferring anonymity.

The Award for Maraimalai Nagar was passed in 1986. However, prior to that, locals had petitioned the government to exclude around 41 acres of land from acquisition.

When in 1987, the government passed a G.O. excluding 25.92 acres, it was pointed out by the Commissioner of Land Administration that the G.O. was null and void as the land already belonged to the government since the Awards were passed in 1986, and as such exclusion was not possible stating that the “government is running terribly lean on its land resources.”

Subsequently, in 1998, the government vide its G.O. cancelled the withdrawal order of 1987. As a result, several petitioners claiming to be land owners affected by the 1998 G.O. approached the High Court asking for quashing the same, and the court obliged in 2007.

The CMDA then advised the government to appeal against the decision though the status of the land parcels was that it belonged to the government.

But even as the case was pending, two land owners approached CMDA for NOC to sell/ develop their land citing the 1987 G.O., which the planning authority in  its resolution stated was done “without mentioning the G.O. 134” leading to transfer of revenue records and “obtaining patta in their name.”

“One of the solutions now for CMDA is to re-allot the lands to the private developer as the construction has already happened after collecting attributable costs,” a former official noted.