official guidance

Annexure to the Minutes of the MC Meeting held on 07.03.2007, for Agenda Item No. 7.4

The Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority annexure to the meeting minutes dated 7 March 2007 records individual resolutions on 14 building regularisation cases. The decisions include demolition, restoration to approved plans, fire safety and parking requirements, document verification, inspection, reconsideration under the 1999 Scheme, and findings that some buildings are not regularisable.

Category
CMDA orders
Pages
3
Status
In force
Open the source document The official copy, as published. Opens in a new tab.
Source document Preview loads as you scroll

What the document covers

The Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority annexure records decisions on 14 applications connected with the 1999 Scheme. Each entry identifies an applicant, registration number, file number, property location and the resolution for that particular case. It does not state a general rule applying to every property.

Main decisions

The Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority recorded the following case-specific outcomes:

  • Narasimhan K., Wallaja Road, Triplicane, is to receive a demolition notice.
  • Tmt. K. Vijayalakshmi, Mowbarays Road, Mylapore, M V Diabetes Specialities Private Limited, Conran Smith Road, Gopalapuram, and Krithivasan S., Sardar Patel Road, Adyar, are to be directed to restore their buildings according to the approved plans and ensure applicable fire safety measures.
  • Kannan V. and others, Thirumalaipillai Road, T. Nagar, were treated as regularisable, subject to inspection for additional construction.
  • A. Mohd. Saleem and others, Avvai Shanmugam Salai, and Coronet Estates Private Limited, Sir Thiyagaraya Road, were asked to provide additional evidence and documents for verification.
  • Dr. Thirunavukkarasu K. N., Kellys Road, Kilpauk, was asked to provide additional evidence. An inspection was also required to check for additional construction.
  • T. H. John Mathew, Anna Nagar, was asked to provide evidence and documents, with the case to be considered under the 1999 Scheme.
  • Iqbal K. M., Arcot Road, Vadapalani, was listed for re-examination under the 1999 Scheme.
  • Malar Hospital Limited, Gandhi Nagar, Adyar, was asked to provide additional evidence. Its application would be considered only under the 1999 Scheme.
  • Praveena H. Metha, Sri Ramasamy Street, Vepery, and Ramchand G., Kasthuri Ranga Road, Gopalapuram, were found not regularisable under the 1999 Scheme. The Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority was directed to continue action through the normal procedure.
  • Thangamaligai G. R., Sir Theagaraya Road, T. Nagar, was directed to restore the building to the ninth floor, provide fire safety measures and parking facilities, and pay the registration fee under the 1999 Scheme.

Who should pay attention

Owners, applicants and buyers dealing with any listed property should note the specific resolution attached to that address and file. Several entries require further inspection, evidence or corrective work, so the recorded outcome is not necessarily an unconditional regularisation approval.

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 the annexure approve every listed building for regularisation?

No. One case is described as regularisable subject to inspection, several require more evidence or reconsideration, two are not regularisable, and one requires a demolition notice.

Which properties were directed to return to their approved plans?

The properties linked to Tmt. K. Vijayalakshmi, M V Diabetes Specialities Private Limited and Krithivasan S. were directed to restore the buildings according to approved plans and ensure applicable fire safety measures.

Which applications were found not regularisable under the 1999 Scheme?

The applications of Praveena H. Metha in Vepery and Ramchand G. in Gopalapuram were found not regularisable. The Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority was to pursue further action through the normal procedure.

Does a request for more documents mean the building was regularised?

No. The annexure separately calls for evidence, document verification or inspection in several cases without recording final regularisation approval.