No application for plan approval of a constructed building should be entertained by officials concerned since it will amount to putting the cart before the horse, the Madras High Court has said. It also said owners of buildings constructed in violation of the approved plan must be made to pay five times the actual electricity charges, property tax and water and sewerage taxes until they set right the violations.

A Division Bench of Justices S. Vaidyanathan and D. Bharatha Chakravarthy made the observations while dismissing a writ petition filed by B. Kanchana, a 70-year-old widow, who had constructed a residential house at Nerkundram without building plan approval from the Greater Chennai Corporation. She had challenged the lock and seal notice issued by the Corporation and sought a direction to the Housing Secretary to dispose of her appeal.

Rejecting her plea, the judges wrote: “No application for approval after completion of the building can be entertained, as it would amount to putting a cart before a horse.” The Bench also insisted that the officials concerned must inspect all buildings under construction right from the stage of laying the basement itself so that the setback area required to be left vacant around every building, as per the approved plan, was adhered to strictly.

The judges also said the applicants for building plan approvals must give sufficient time for the officers to process their applications and take a decision one way or the other. “Any request for an instant approval will pave way for ‘under the table dealing’ and in that process, the officials will flourish and their belly will get doubled with the money received as bribe,” the Bench observed.

In so far as those who had violated approved building plans, the court said, though electricity might be an essential service, it could be provided at a premium for such violators until they set right those violations. Not just electricity, but also property tax, water and sewerage taxes too, could be collected at five times the regular charges so that it could send a stern message to violations.

“Last but not the least, we want to emphasise that courts must be slow in granting relief, much less interim relief, in cases where violators approach the court for relief. Even a direction for disposal of representation will give rise to another round of litigation and judges must ensure that no leniency is shown to the violators,” the Division Bench concluded.