MINUTES OF THE 44th MEETING OF THE MONITORING COMMITTEE HELD ON 30.03.2012 AT 4.00 P.M IN THE MAIN CONFERENCE HALL OF CMDA
The Minutes of the 44th Meeting of the Monitoring Committee, issued by the Monitoring Committee at CMDA following its meeting on 30 March 2012, record decisions on specific building regularisation appeals and a discussion about upper floor parking. No government order number is printed, and the recorded outcomes include acceptances, recommended rejections, re examinations and a deferred case.
What the minutes cover
The Minutes of the 44th Meeting of the Monitoring Committee at CMDA record decisions taken on 30 March 2012. Most decisions concern applications or appeals seeking regularisation of unauthorised or deviated buildings at identified properties in Chennai, Pammal and Avadi.
The minutes also confirm the previous meeting's minutes, note action taken, and place a Madras High Court order dated 17 February 2012 before the committee for information. A proposal from CREDAI about treating parking on upper floors as non FSI area in non IT buildings was discussed, but the supplied text does not contain the committee's detailed recommendations.
Decisions affecting identified properties
The Monitoring Committee recorded the following outcomes:
- For the commercial building at Door Nos. 781 to 785, Anna Salai, Nungambakkam, the appeal is to be re examined after obtaining certified property tax records for all floors and asking the appellant to establish ownership. The committee considered that a CMRL no objection certificate need not be insisted upon because the building predated the CMRL alignment.
- For the residential building at Door No. 7, Dr. Subbarayan Nagar, Kodambakkam, the committee recommended rejection because the evidence did not establish that the entire building was completed on or before 28 February 1999.
- For the commercial building at Door No. 103, East Mada Church Street, Royapuram, the appeal is to be re examined after the Corporation of Chennai clarifies two contradictory property tax assessment working sheets.
- Regularisation was accepted for the prayer hall and visiting priests' residence at Plots 1, 2 and 3, Sri Sankar Nagar, Pammal.
- The trust building at New Door No. 226, Avvai Shanmugam Salai, Royapettah, was deferred for a site inspection.
- Regularisation was accepted for specified institutional buildings in the college campus at Paruthipattu Village, Avadi Township, subject to a levy for land use violation under the First Master Plan.
- The committee recommended rejection of the appeal concerning the school buildings at Door No. 215, R.K. Mutt Road, Mylapore, after additional construction was observed following an earlier inspection.
Who should check these minutes
Owners, buyers, lenders and professionals dealing with any listed property should note whether the outcome was an acceptance, a recommendation to reject, a re examination or a deferral. Where the minutes only recommend rejection or require further evidence, they do not record a final approval for regularisation.
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 regularise every building discussed?
No. Some regularisations were accepted, while other cases were recommended for rejection, deferred or sent for re examination.
Was the Pammal prayer hall regularised?
Yes. The Monitoring Committee accepted regularisation of the GF plus FF prayer hall building and service residence for visiting priests at Plots 1, 2 and 3, Sri Sankar Nagar, Pammal.
Why was the Kodambakkam residential building appeal recommended for rejection?
The evidence did not establish that the entire GF plus 2F plus part 3F residential building had been constructed and completed on or before 28 February 1999.
Did the committee require a CMRL no objection certificate for the Anna Salai property?
No. The committee considered that it need not be insisted upon because the building had been constructed much earlier than the CMRL alignment.
