Madras high court rejects builder's plea to hand over 103 cents

Chennai: Pointing out that for the fault of the builder of the multi-storied building in Moulivakkam, which collapsed on June 28, 2014, in which 61 persons died and 27 injured, the authorities cannot be made to suffer, the Madras high court has dismissed a petition filed by the builder, seeking a direction to the authorities to hand over the possession of the land measuring about 103 cents.

The First Bench comprising Chief Justice V.K. Tahilramani and Justice M. Duraiswamy dismissed the petition filed by M.Manohar, MD of M/s Prime Shrusti Housing Pvt. Ltd.

The petitioner was constructing two multi-storied residential building consisting of block-A and block-B. While so, On June 28, 2014, suddenly, the entire Block-B collapsed, leading to the death of 61 workers and injuring 27 persons. Thereafter, the site was under the custody of district administration and police.

During the inspection by the enquiry commission, it was noticed that the building had been constructed in deviation to the approval, therefore, the security deposit of Rs 15.90 lakh paid by the builder was forfeited by the CMDA.

The SIT found that the building collapsed for the reason that it could not withstand its own weight and it was also found that the building had collapsed due to faulty design and poor construction.

As per the findings of the enquiry commission, the government directed the district magistrate and collector, Kancheepuram, to take necessary action to demolish the existing unsafe building viz., block-A. After several round of litigation against demolition, the matter reached the Supreme Court which directed the authorities to demolish the building and made it clear that the cost should be borne by the petitioner. After demolition, the possession of the land should be handed over to them.

Pursuant to this order, the block-A was demolished and the authorities called upon the builder to pay Rs 91.54 lakh and also informed that on remitting the said amount, the site would be handed over to them.

Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had already paid Rs 1.12 crore, which should be adjusted towards demolition charges and the balance should be refunded to the petitioner.

Government pleader (in-charge) V.Jayaprakash Narayanan submitted that the charges paid by the petitioner were not refundable, unless the planning permission was rejected by the CMDA. In the case on hand, though the planning permission was given to the petitioner, they have violated the planning permission and put up construction unauthorizedly. Therefore, they were not entitled to get the refund of the charges paid by them as well as the security deposit made by them. The CMDA claimed Rs 1.11crore towards demolition charges and 50 per cent of the consultants fees.

The bench said the demolition of the building constructed by the petitioner was only due to the violation committed by the petitioner in constructing the block-A and block-B. For the fault of the petitioner, the authorities cannot be made to suffer. Because of the violation committed by the petitioner, 61 workers had died and 27 persons were injured. The authorities had spent huge money for prosecuting and defending the case before this court as well as before the Supreme Court. The expenditure had occurred only because of the petitioner's act. Therefore, the liability cannot be fastened on the authorities to bear the expenditure. Only the petitioner was liable to pay all the expenses incurred for the demolition of the building, the bench added.