‘Plan violators can’t seek remedy citing Sec 113-C’

The first bench comprising Chief Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice R Mahadevan while dismissing a plea seeking remedy as per Section 113 of the Act, said “We once again emphasise to the authorities the importance of having a culmination to the issue of framing rules qua Section 113-C of the said Act.” The bench also held that “We believe that Section 113-C of the said Act is more in the nature of a relaxation and certainly, the petitioner is not precluded from moving an application under Section 113-C of the said Act. But the ground reality is that at present, it may be a futile exercise, as the Government has not notified the rules. In the absence of the Rules, it cannot be said that there is an inherent right to seek regularisation, more so in view of the orders passed by the Supreme Court and this Court.” 

The petitioner S Edison had submitted that consequent to purchasing the property in 2008, he had moved a regularsiation application, which was rejected on February 10, 2014. Subsequently, a showcase notice was issued by the CMDA on August 8, 2014 citing deviations in the approved plan and was asked to produce the original plan. 

However, the Regional Deputy Commissioner, Enforcement Cell, directed him to restore the building to its prior condition, failing which action will be taken to lock and seal the premises under Sections 56 and 57 of the Town Planning Act. However, the bench in its order also made it clear that its observation will not prohibit the petitioner to seek time from the authority to bring the building in conformity with the original plan. It may be noted that the reqularisation scheme, which had started as a one-time measure has been extended on a regular basis. 

After the court struck down such frequent regularisation, the government had announced the scheme for regularisation of unauthorised buildings constructed prior to July 1. 2007 by inserting section 113-C under the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971.