Madras High Court bans registration of unapproved layouts
![Madras High Court Madras High Court](https://images.deccanchronicle.com/dc-Cover-l3dac4bedaengup3c2ikpnqb66-20170419080121.Medi.jpeg)
Chennai: The blanket ban on registration of unapproved plots in Tamil Nadu has returned after a gap of three weeks as the Madras high court restrained authorities from registering and re-registering any plot that is part of the unapproved layout for three weeks.
The first bench comprising Chief Justice Indira Banerjee and Justice M. Sundar, before which a batch of petitions on the matter came up for hearing on Friday, has also called for details of the registration of unapproved plots registered in violation of the court’s Sept. 9, 2016, ban order. The bench would decide the issue after a special sitting on May 4 and 5.
The Advocate General submitted that the rules have been framed and are awaiting the approval of the Cabinet. The rules are expected to be finalised shortly, he said.
When a batch of impleading petitions seeking to relax the order of the ban of the registrations of the unapproved plots and the petitions filed by Advocates VBR Menon and Elephant Rajendran seeking to restrict the conversion of Agricultural Lands into Housing Plots indiscriminately came up for hearing on Friday, the first bench passed the order.
Responding to Elephant Rajendran who informed the court that more than 4 lakh registrations have taken place since September 2016 and about 60000 registrations since the relaxation order made on March 28, 2017, The bench said such registrations would be ‘undoubtedly a nullity.’ Even registration and resale of properties following the March 28 order, are subject to the outcome of the writ petitions.
Senior advocate Nalini Chidambaram said modifying the March 28 order would send a confusing message to the general public. The bench said by allowing resale of unapproved properties, the court would be putting a premium on violations. “It is an absolute deterrence to those who are highly compliant with the law.” The bench adjourned the matter for May 4 for further hearing.