Madras High Court pulls up authorities for remaining mute spectators to illegal constructions

The Madras High Court recently observed that failure by the authorities to promptly tackle illegal constructions has emboldened greedy people to convert fertile land into concrete jungles without permission. .A Bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice AD Maria Clete observed that such unauthorised constructions often pose dangers to the public as well as the environment. "Greedy men are emboldened to construct buildings unauthorisedly in urban areas and recently in rural areas, thereby, causing inconvenience to the neighbors and the road users in that locality. These greedy men are converting the fertile lands as concrete jungle, thereby, depriving other citizen to have peaceful living. Therefore, strict actions are contemplated and the inaction of the authorities at no circumstances be tolerated by the Courts," it added. .Notably, the Court went on to criticise authorities in the State for failing to promptly act against illegal constructions. Such neglect fosters a culture of impunity and undermines the rule of law, it opined."Directions were already issued by the Madras High Court in several judgments. Despite those judgments, the authorities remain mute spectators and the inaction continues. They are allowing the building owners to construct unauthorised construction indiscriminately, thereby, causing prejudice to the interest of the neighbors, road users and the citizen in general," it said, in this regard..The Court recounted that, last year, the State had formed a high level monitoring committee to curb and monitor the unauthorized constructions in compliance with directions from the High Court.However, there was nothing to show whether this Committee had made any progress in carrying out its task, the Court observed."The efficient functioning of the High Level Monitoring Committee is not made clear before this Court. Unless the said Committee is made to function effectively, the very objectives of the directives issued by the Apex Court and the High Court will be futile exercise," it opined.It, therefore, made the Chief Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu a formal party to the case before it and posted the matter for further hearing on August 7.The Chief Secretary was directed to ensure the committee meets monthly, reports to the government, and takes appropriate action against officials failing in their duties."The Chief Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu shall ensure that the High Level Monitoring Committee meet once in a month as per the Government orders and submit a monthly report to the Government. The committee's functions must be periodically monitored by the Government and any inaction must result in an appropriate action against the authority who failed to implement the Government order and commit a dereliction of duty," the Court ordered..The Court also reiterated that the relief getting an irregular or illegal construction regularised is only granted in exceptional circumstances, and cannot be claimed as a right."Building constructions must be undertaken only after obtaining building plan permission from the competent authorities... Regularization or condonation or otherwise are only enabling provisions and must be granted exceptionally in deserving cases where an injustice has been caused. However, regularization cannot be claimed as an absolute right," it held. The Court explained that if such the regularization of illegal constructions is allowed in a routine manner, the very purpose of laws requiring prior approval before construction would be defeated."If such a principle is be applied it will result in an anomalous situation, where every person will put up construction unauthorisedly and thereafter submit an application to regularise and the very objective of the Act and Rules will be defeated.".The Court passed the order on a plea calling for the removal of a rice mill that was said to have been built without due approvals in Tiruchirappalli. The petitioner approached the Court for relief after the concerned authorities failed to take any action against the rice mill or its owners. During the hearing, the State's counsel too acknowledged that the building was constructed without obtaining the required building plan approval. The rice mill's owner countered that he had applied for due permissions, but that his application was blocked due to a personal vendetta between him, the petitioner and the Panchayat President. He urged the Court not to order any action to take down the mill and assured that he would submit an application to regularise the construction of the building. The Court, however, declined to extend any such relief. It also directed the respondent-authorities to demolish unauthorised construction, if identified, within eight weeks. .Advocate M Dinesh Hari Sudarsan appeared for the petitioner.Government Advocate M Sarangan and Advocate M Karthikeya Venkatachalapathy appeared for the respondents..[Read Order]