Prosecute officials who grant illegal building plan permissions in hill stations, orders Madras High Court

Stressing the need to protect the environment and ecology in hill stations, the Madras High Court has directed the State government to initiate criminal prosecution as well as departmental proceedings against officials who grant building plan permissions in violation of the rules.

A Division Bench of Justices S.M. Subramaniam and Mohammed Shaffiq wrote: “Since any construction of building in violation of the law would cause damage to the environment, ecology and forests in hill stations, the competent authorities are expected to be cautious and follow the applicable provisions scrupulously.” The judges directed the High court Registry to communicate a copy of their order to the Chief Secretary so that the latter could, in turn, issue necessary directions/instructions to all authorities, conferred with the powers to deal with building plan permissions in hill stations, and ensure strict compliance with the law.

The directions were issued while allowing a writ appeal filed by Udhagamandalam Municipality Commissioner in the Nilgiris district in 2023. The appeal had been filed against a single judge’s 2020 order to grant permission for constructing a building within a distance of 17 metres from the boundaries of a reserve forest.

It was brought to the notice of the Division Bench that the single judge had permitted such construction on the basis of the writ petitioner’s argument that his land fell within an area classified as ‘Primary Residential Use Zone (Economically Weaker Section)’ as per the Master Plan notified by the State government.

Disagreeing with the view taken by the single judge, the Division Bench said, the judge had failed to consider that construction of buildings in hill stations was governed by the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities (Hill Station) Building Rules, 1993 which were in the nature of a special law applicable only to hill stations.

The Bench also recorded the submission of advocate P. Srinivas, representing Udhagamandalam Municipality, that Rule 7(2) of the 1993 statutory rules clearly states that no assignment of land should be made either for agriculture or any other purpose, including residential use, within 150 metres from reserve forests.

Holding that the term ‘assignment’ found in Rule 7(2) would also include conveyance, transfer or parting away with the property, the Division Bench agreed with Mr. Srinivas that the writ petitioner could not be permitted to construct any kind of building within 17 metres from the boundary of a reserve forest.

Though a senior counsel representing the writ petitioner, L. Loganathan, had heavily relied upon an undertaking given to the court by an Additional Advocate General in another case that no building plan application would be rejected by citing Rule 7(2), the Bench said, such an undertaking runs counter to the law.

“Any undertaking of a law officer running counter to the Act or Rules cannot be relied on by the courts for the purpose of considering the issues before it,” the Bench said and cited a Supreme Court verdict wherein it was held that a client was not bound by a statement which his/her lawyer was not authorised to make.