Minutes of the 41st Meeting of the Monitoring Committee
The CMDA Monitoring Committee, chaired by the Housing Secretary (H&UD) and Vice-Chairman in charge of CMDA, recorded these minutes for its meeting held on 13 September 2011. The minutes record property-specific decisions and recommendations on regularisation applications, appeals, evidence of building completion and enforcement action, but print no government order number or full department name.
What the minutes cover
The CMDA Monitoring Committee considered regularisation cases involving residential, commercial, institutional, hotel and hospital buildings in Chennai. The decisions concern only the identified properties and do not announce a general regularisation scheme.
For several applications, the main question was whether credible records showed that construction had been completed before 28 February 1999. The committee also considered later additions, road encroachments, use of unauthorised floors, ownership issues and whether an applicant was entitled to seek regularisation.
Decisions affecting identified properties
- The individual first-floor flat at Door No. 25, Old No. 21, Abiramapuram 3rd Street was accepted as having been completed before 28 February 1999, based on a registered ownership document dated 24 October 1996.
- The appeal concerning Door No. 11, Kasi Chetty Lane was recommended for rejection because a balcony projection encroaching over the public road had not been removed and credible evidence for the fifth-floor part was not provided.
- Regularisation of the tenth floor at Door No. 564, Anna Salai was rejected because that floor had been put to use contrary to conditional approval. A locking and sealing notice was recommended.
- The institutional building at Door No. 2, De-Mellows Road, Choolai was accepted as completed before 28 February 1999, subject to removal of structures added after the earlier inspection.
- The appeal for two eight-floor blocks at Door No. 128, Lattice Bridge Road was recommended for rejection. A locking and sealing notice was also recommended for unauthorised commercial portions.
- Regularisation of the ground-floor flat at Door No. 21, Soundararajan Street, T. Nagar was rejected because the applicant's standing to apply for that individual flat was not established.
- The hospital appeal for Door No. 35, Conran Smith Road was recommended for rejection because added areas, structures and connections to adjoining buildings had not been rectified.
- Buildings at Door Nos. 19/1 and 20/1, North Crescent Road were accepted as completed before 28 February 2009, as stated in the minutes.
- The building at Door No. 2, Waddels Road was approved for regularisation subject to removal of later additions.
- The building at Plot No. 3567, Door No. M.71, 6th Avenue, Anna Nagar East was accepted as completed before 28 February 1999.
Relevance to buyers and owners
Owners or buyers of a listed property should check whether the recorded decision includes removal, locking, sealing or unresolved regularisation conditions. Acceptance of evidence about the completion date does not necessarily approve later construction.
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
Do these minutes create a regularisation rule for every property in Chennai?
No. The CMDA Monitoring Committee recorded decisions and recommendations for individually identified buildings and applications.
Was the tenth floor of the hotel at Door No. 564, Anna Salai regularised?
No. Regularisation was rejected because the tenth floor was being used contrary to the conditional approval, and the committee recommended a locking and sealing notice.
Were later additions approved when a building was accepted as completed before 28 February 1999?
Not automatically. For the properties at De-Mellows Road and Waddels Road, acceptance or regularisation was made subject to removing structures added later.
What evidence did the committee accept for older construction?
Depending on the property, the committee accepted registered ownership documents, property tax assessment notices, CMDA or government correspondence, demolition notices and inspection reports as credible or supporting evidence.
