Minutes of the 52nd Meeting of the Monitoring Committee
The Monitoring Committee constituted by the Government of Tamil Nadu through G.O.Ms.No.325, Housing & Urban Development Department, dated 30.11.2006, recorded these minutes at its meeting held at CMDA on 04.02.2015. The minutes review action taken on the High Court of Madras judgment dated 23.08.2006 concerning unauthorised construction and building regularisation, including scrutiny of applications, proof that buildings existed before 28.02.1999, and enforcement against rejected cases.
What the minutes cover
The Minutes of the 52nd Meeting of the Monitoring Committee record the committee's review of compliance with the High Court of Madras judgment dated 23.08.2006 in several writ petitions concerning the Building Regulation Scheme. The meeting also considered an action taken report requested following a High Court order dated 07.10.2014.
The High Court had declared invalid the amendments applying regularisation to construction completed after 28.02.1999. Regularisation orders for buildings constructed after that date under the amended provisions were quashed.
Who may be affected
The minutes are relevant to owners and applicants whose buildings in the Chennai Metropolitan Area were covered by the regularisation schemes of 1999, 2000, 2001 or 2002. They are particularly relevant to commercial, mixed commercial, residential, industrial and institutional special buildings and multi-storeyed buildings.
Applications are being examined using 28.02.1999 as the completion cut-off date. Applicants were asked to produce evidence showing that their buildings had been completed before that date.
Key recorded actions and figures
- A total of 65,529 regularisation applications had been received by CMDA and local bodies.
- CMDA held 25,144 applications, while local bodies held 40,385 applications.
- Individual opportunity letters were sent to applicants so they could submit evidence of completion before 28.02.1999.
- Evidence was received and processed in 1,595 commercial and mixed commercial special and multi-storeyed building cases.
- The Monitoring Committee accepted evidence in 179 of those cases and rejected evidence in 1,416 cases.
- Among 1,219 commercial and mixed commercial multi-storeyed building applications taken up for scrutiny, evidence was accepted in 127 cases and 502 applications were rejected for failure to produce credible evidence. Processing of 590 applications remained underway.
Enforcement and committee oversight
The High Court directions required priority consideration of commercial complexes exceeding four floors. They called for demolition where an entire building or an additional floor was illegal, and for modifications or demolition needed to meet fire safety and parking norms.
The minutes state that enforcement action had begun for rejected regularisation cases. Because the buildings were occupied, de-occupation notices were required before further enforcement action, and cases remained at different stages.
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 a regularisation application protect a building completed after 28.02.1999?
No. The minutes record that the High Court of Madras quashed regularisation orders made under the amended provisions for buildings constructed after 28.02.1999.
What evidence did applicants have to provide?
Applicants were asked to provide credible evidence showing that the building had been completed before 28.02.1999.
What happens if the Monitoring Committee rejects the evidence or application?
The minutes state that enforcement action was initiated in rejected cases. For occupied buildings, de-occupation notices had to be served before follow-up enforcement action.
Were commercial multi-storeyed buildings given priority?
Yes. The Monitoring Committee directed that commercial and mixed commercial multi-storeyed building applications be taken up first, and 1,219 such applications were placed under scrutiny.
