Minutes of the 29th Meeting of the Monitoring Committee Held on 01.02.08 at 11.00 A.M. in the Conference Hall of CMDA
The Monitoring Committee appointed by the High Court issued these minutes for its 29th meeting, held at CMDA on 1 February 2008. The minutes replace parts of the 28th meeting minutes, record discussions on unauthorised construction and enforcement, and direct that individual completion certificate cases be decided under the existing completion certificate norms rather than brought before the Monitoring Committee.
What the minutes cover
The Monitoring Committee appointed by the High Court considered enforcement and regularisation matters within the Chennai Metropolitan Area. The meeting covered commercial multi-storeyed buildings, commercial special buildings, completion certificates, unauthorised or deviated construction, responsibility of officials and action against builders.
The minutes confirm the 28th meeting minutes except for agenda items 28.4 and 28.6.1, which are replaced. The replacement text records the following positions:
- Difficulties in disconnecting water and electricity from buildings marked for demolition are internal operational matters for the enforcement agencies.
- CMDA was described as primarily a planning body that was not configured for the implementation and enforcement functions assigned to it.
- Urban Local Bodies within the Chennai Metropolitan Area were described as lacking technical and managerial expertise to monitor and enforce building rules and regulations.
- Governance reforms were considered necessary to redefine and streamline the functions of CMDA, Chennai Corporation and Urban Local Bodies.
- Government procedures already existed for accountability and action against officials, and related internal problems should not be placed before the Court-appointed Monitoring Committee.
Completion certificates and individual buildings
The Monitoring Committee considered a completion certificate matter for a basement, ground floor and three-floor office building at Door No. 25, Greams Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai. The reported issue was a side setback violation of 0.54 metre on the southern side.
The Monitoring Committee decided that individual completion certificate cases need not be brought before it. Such cases were to be disposed of under the existing completion certificate norms.
A separate agenda item concerned an unauthorised or deviated ground-floor industrial building at Door No. 33, Arunachalam Road, Saligramam Village. The agenda recorded that the applicant had not submitted credible evidence as directed by the High Court.
Officials and builders
Non-official members sought priority for fixing responsibility on officials and identifying and acting against erring builders. CMDA reported that systemic problems made responsibility difficult to fix in most unauthorised construction cases, but disciplinary action had been initiated against four CMDA officials where dereliction of duty was clearly established.
A list of 21 erring builders had been identified and placed before the Monitoring Committee. More files were under scrutiny. The Committee had not yet decided the amount of penalty or the method of recovery, and further action against the builders was to follow that decision.
This summary is generated from the source document to help you find what is relevant. The PDF above is authoritative. For advice on your own property, use LandLens One or speak to a qualified professional.
Common questions
Does an individual completion certificate case have to go before the Monitoring Committee?
No. The Monitoring Committee stated that individual completion certificate cases should be disposed of under the existing completion certificate norms.
Did the Monitoring Committee set a penalty for erring builders?
No. The minutes state that the amount of penalty and the method of recovery still had to be decided before further action could be taken.
How many erring builders had been identified?
A list of 21 erring builders had been identified and placed before the Monitoring Committee. Additional files were still under scrutiny.
Did CMDA report action against officials over unauthorised construction?
Yes. CMDA reported that disciplinary action had been initiated against four officials where dereliction of duty had been clearly established.
