Begin typing your search...

    'Set up panel to fix CMDA, Corporation limits’

    Rampant unauthorised constructions in the state is mainly due to the inconsistency in the rules between the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority (CMDA) and the Corporation of Chennai, observed the Madras High Court, while directing the state to set up an expert body to remedy the situation.

    Set up panel to fix CMDA, Corporation limits’
    X
    Madras High Court

    Chennai

    The first bench comprising Chief Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice M Sundar, after going through the affidavits filed by CMDA and Corporation of Chennai said, “We believe that it may be appropriate for the government to set up an expert body for a long term perspective as to how the jurisdiction of the Corporation and CMDA should operate, as inconsistencies are stated to be in the provisions itself. These are often used by the violators and the result can be seen from the existing rampant unauthorised constructions.”  

    The bench also held that “The CMDA and Corporation have accepted in their affidavits that the duality of jurisdiction between the CMDA and the Corporation coupled with the building norms, where in the same area as to which of the two authorities may operate. This depends on the nature of construction sought to be made and the size of the plot. 

    “The matter relates to the unauthorised construction resorted to by one Devaraji at Kapaleeshwarar Nagar in Neelankarai, which was sealed and locked by the officials. Based on this, Devaraji moved the Madras High Court seeking to unlock his premises to carry out the demolition of the  unauthorised, deviated portion. The court in turn ruled in his favour. 

    But contrary to the court order, Devaraji instead of demolishing the deviated portion, proceeded with the construction. Hence, the petitioners, who had moved the plea earlier against the unauthorised construction, followed it up with a contempt plea against Devaraji and the authorities concerned for wilfully disobeying the court order. 

    In this particular instance, the duality of jurisdiction between the Corporation and CMDA is that the onus is on the Corporation to act in case its plan approval is violated. But, if the violation pertains to extra storeys beyond the first floor, the CMDA has to be informed. But thereafter, lack of clarity as to who would act, has turned out to be handy for the violators. 

    Also, on recording the Additional Advocate General submission that CMDA has come out with recommendations in this regard and the same was receiving government attention, the bench directed the contemnor to approach the Corporation with the rectification proposal within seven days.  

    Visit news.dtnext.in to explore our interactive epaper!

    Download the DT Next app for more exciting features!

    Click here for iOS

    Click here for Android

    migrator
    Next Story