Minutes of the 49th Meeting of the Monitoring Committee held on 14.06.2013
The CMDA Monitoring Committee issued the Minutes of the 49th Meeting of the Monitoring Committee held on 14 June 2013, recording decisions on applications and appeals concerning the regularisation of unauthorised or deviated buildings in Chennai. The committee approved regularisation in three property-specific cases, subject to payment of balance regularisation fees and other applicable charges, and recommended rejection of nine appeals, mainly because credible evidence was not provided to show construction before 28 February 1999.
What the minutes cover
The CMDA Monitoring Committee considered individual regularisation cases involving residential, commercial, industrial and hospital buildings. Its decisions turn mainly on whether applicants produced credible evidence that construction had been completed before 28 February 1999.
The minutes record decisions for specific properties only. A buyer or owner dealing with one of the listed addresses should check the relevant decision, supporting evidence, outstanding charges and any later government action on an appeal.
Regularisation approved
The CMDA Monitoring Committee resolved to regularise construction in three cases:
- Door No.40, C.I.T. Nagar, 1st Main Road, Nandanam. A renewal agreement dated 3 December 1998 was accepted as evidence that construction was completed before 28 February 1999.
- Door No.36, Vaidyarama Iyer Street, T. Nagar. The applicant had removed an additional temporary structure built after 28 February 1999. A refused plan dated 2 June 1999 was accepted as evidence that the terrace structure existed before the cut-off date.
- Door No.1, Prithivi Avenue, Abiramapuram, Alwarpet. The applicant complied with an earlier direction and paid balance property tax arrears from the second half of 1998-99 to the date of consideration.
Each approval was made subject to payment of balance regularisation fees and other applicable charges.
Appeals recommended for rejection
The CMDA Monitoring Committee recommended that the Government reject regularisation appeals concerning properties at Noor Veerasamy Street, Ashok Nagar, Dr. P.T. Rajan Salai, Nelson Manickam Road, Pinjala Subramanian Road, G.N. Chetty Road, Kutty Street, North Park Street and A.A. Block, Arignar Anna Nagar.
Key reasons included:
- Failure to provide credible evidence, including a property tax assessment working sheet for the second half of 1998-99 or earlier.
- Failure to prove that the relevant construction was completed before 28 February 1999.
- Construction of part of a hospital building after the cut-off date.
- The earlier committee position that an individual commercial flat could not be considered for regularisation.
Who may be affected
The minutes directly concern the owners and applicants for the listed properties. Prospective buyers, lenders and property professionals examining those buildings may need to verify whether required charges were paid in approved cases, or whether the Government later acted on the recommended rejection of an appeal.
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
Did the committee approve every regularisation application it considered?
No. The CMDA Monitoring Committee approved regularisation in three property-specific cases and recommended rejection of nine appeals.
What evidence did the committee expect for construction before 28 February 1999?
The minutes repeatedly refer to credible evidence, including a property tax assessment working sheet for the second half of 1998-99 or earlier. In approved cases, the committee also considered a renewal agreement and a previously refused plan.
Does an approval in these minutes mean that nothing further must be paid?
No. Each approved regularisation was subject to payment of balance regularisation fees and other applicable charges.
Was the appeal for the hospital on G.N. Chetty Road accepted?
No. The committee recommended rejection because the constructed area exceeded the Corporation assessed area, part of the third floor was built after the cut-off date, and no additional evidence proved that the entire building was completed before 28 February 1999.
