Madras HC nixes builder's bid to avoid repaying Rs 1.1 cr incurred as expenditure by authorities

Almost five years after a building in the city collapsed, leading to the death of 61 people and injury to 27, the Madras High Court prevented the builder's bid to avoid repaying Rs 1.1 crore incurred as expenditure by

authorities to demolish an unsafe second tower at the site. Prime Shrusti Housing Pvt Ltd built 86 residential

apartments in two 11-storied buildings at Moulivakkam here. On June 28, 2014, Block B collapsed, leading to the death of 61 workers.

As Block A stood too close to the collapsed structure, it too had suffered instability and was later certified as unsafe for occupation. Pursuant to a Supreme Court order, Block A was demolished using implosion technology, and the company was slapped demolition charge of Rs 1.1 crore.

Refusing to pay the sum, the company said it was liable to pay only Rs 49.9 lakh, and that the rest should be adjusted from open space reservation charges, premium FSI charges and infrastructure development charges. The first bench of Chief Justice VK Tahilramani and Justice M Duraiswamy trashed the claim and said: "Demolition of the building constructed by the petitioner was only due to the violation committed in constructing Block A and Block B.

"For the fault of the petitioner, officials cannot be made to suffer. Because of the violation committed by the

petitioner, 61 workers had died and 27 persons were injured." The court said the authorities had spent huge money for prosecuting and defending the case before the court as well as before the Supreme Court.

The expenditure occurred only because of the petitioner's act, it said. "Therefore, the liability cannot be fastened on the

authorities to bear the expenditure. Only the petitioner is liable to pay all the expenses incurred for the demolition of

the building," the bench said. As for the firms demand that its deposit be adjusted

against the demolition charges, the first bench said since the company violated the planning permission and put up the

construction unauthorised, which resulted in the disaster, it was not entitled to claim any refund from the Chennai

Metropolitan Development Authority (CMDA). That apart, the charges paid by the petitioner-company

were not refundable, unless the planning permission was rejected by the CMDA.

"In the case on hand, though the planning permission was given to the petitioner, they have violated the planning

permission and put up construction unauthorised. Therefore, they are not entitled to get the refund of the charges paid by them as well as the security deposits made

by them," the judges said.

(This story has not been edited by Devdiscourse staff and is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)