ORDER Mr. SATISH K. AGNIHOTRI and Mr. K.K. SASIDHARAN, JJ. Introductory: 1. Whether the assignee of a building constructed without planning permission, and in respect of which demolition notice was issued earlier after rejecting the request for regularization and confirming the same by the High Court (in a writ petition filed by the original owner) would get a fresh cause of action to revive the concluded matter, merely on account of his purchase, is the core issue that arises for our consideration in the writ petition in W.P. No. 11194/2010. 2. The petitioner purchased a commercial building with a clear knowledge that it was the subject matter of litigation on account of its construction without obtaining planning permit and succeeded to the litigation, and the attempt now is to prolong the litigation indefinitely and thereby to avoid demolition (and to enjoy the income from property) notwithstanding the fact that major part of the building, including the marriage hall, were unauthorized constructions made in violation of the building regulations. A brief backdrop: W.P. No. 11194 of 2010: 3. The building situated at D. No. 150, Velachery Main Road, Poondy Bazar, Selaiyur, Chennai, in S. No. 333/A/2B of Saliyur Village, was constructed by Thiru V.S.Nagarajan. The Planning Authority granted permission to construct a residential building. However, the builder converted the building into a marriage hall cum shopping complex. The builder submitted application for regularization before the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as “CMDA”). The CMDA, pending consideration of application for regularization, is stated to have issued a completion certificate for the purpose of obtaining electricity and sewerage connection. While so, a writ petition was filed in W.P. No. 10309/2005 at the instance of a third party for taking action against Thiru. V.S.Nagarajan, on account of the illegal construction put up by him. The High Court directed the authorities to consider the representation on merits. The application for regularization submitted by the builder was rejected by CMDA in the meantime, vide order dated 6 June 2005. The second respondent thereafter issued a demolition notice on 10 June 2005. The builder filed a writ petition in W.P. No. 23817/2005 to consider his appeal filed against the order rejecting the regularization application and to demolish the building. The appeal was rejected on merits. The builder filed a writ petition in W.P. No. 18659 of 2006. The second respondent thereafter issued a demolition notice on 10 June 2005. The builder filed a writ petition in W.P. No. 23817/2005 to consider his appeal filed against the order rejecting the regularization application and to demolish the building. The appeal was rejected on merits. The builder filed a writ petition in W.P. No. 18659 of 2006. The High Court was pleased to dismiss the writ petition. Thereafter, the builder filed an appeal before the monitoring committee. 4. While the matters stood thus, the petitioner purchased the property from Thiru.V.S.Nagarajan. The petitioner, in the meantime, received a notice dated 30 April 2010 issued by the second respondent initiating enforcement action with respect to the illegal construction. The petitioner submitted a representation before the second respondent indicating that the Government have already issued an ordinance, safeguarding the construction already made and as such, it was not correct to take further action for demolition. However, there was no follow up action taken by the second respondent to consider his representation. The petitioner, therefore, challenges the notice dated 30 April 2010 on the file of the second respondent, directing him to discontinue the occupation for the purpose of sealing and locking the premises. W.P. No. 17639/2013: 5. The petitioner wanted to undertake certain repair works of the building in spite of initiating proceedings by the second respondent by notice dated 30 April 2010. According to the petitioner, he made a request to the second respondent to permit him to undertake repairs. However, the 2nd respondent was not prepared to give him permission. The petitioner is therefore before this Court. 6. The Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority, the third respondent in W.P. No. 17639/2013, filed a detailed counter affidavit indicating the deviations made by the builder. According to the CMDA, construction was not made before the cut-off date and as such, the case of the petitioner would not attract the regularization scheme. It was contended that the building plan was sanctioned for a shop cum residence in ground floor and first floor. However, the nature of building was changed and shops in ground floor and first floor, and Kalyana Mandapam in the second floor were constructed and as such, the entire second floor is an unauthorized construction. The CMDA further contended that absolutely there is no parking space and as such, the petitioner violated the building regulations with impunity. Summary of submissions: 7. The CMDA further contended that absolutely there is no parking space and as such, the petitioner violated the building regulations with impunity. Summary of submissions: 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the construction was made before the cut-off date and as such, the authority should have considered the case for regularization. It was contended that since ordinance No. 2/2009 was in operation, the second respondent was not correct in passing the impugned order dated 30 April 2010. 8. The learned counsel for CMDA contended that the vendor of the petitioner earlier constructed a building as per the permit issued by the local body. The local body issued a completion certificate on 30 January 2004. However, the builder made additional construction after obtaining the completion certificate. Since the construction was not completed before the cut-off date, there is no question of regularization. The learned counsel contended that the ordinance is not in force now and the same is replaced by Section 113(c) of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971, which was inserted by State Act 36/2012. Since the impugned construction was made after the cut-off date, the petitioner is not entitled to invoke section 113(c) of the Act. Analysis: 9. The petitioner is the successor-in-interest of Thiru.V.S.Nagarajan, the original builder, who constructed a commercial building at D. No. 150, Velachery Main Road, Poondy Bazar, Selaiyur, Chennai, in S. No. 333/A/2B of Saliyur Village. The builder obtained planning permission for construction of shop cum residence in ground floor and first floor. However, in total violation of the building permit, he constructed additional floors and even changed the usage from residential to commercial. 10. The counter affidavit filed by CMDA contain the details of violation. It reads thus: Sl. No. Description As per approved Plan As on site Deviation 0Remarks I Set back spaces : Car parking area converted as shops 1 Front Set back 8.20 m 2.10 m 6.10 m 2 Side Set Back on Eastern Side 3.00 m Nil 3.00 m 3 Side Set Back on Western Side 3.00 m Nil 3.00 m 4 Rear Setback 4.50 m Nil Construction of Toilet 5 On Eastern Side 6 On Velachery Road car parking area converted as shop cum Kalyanamandapam 7 Building plan was sanctioned for shop cum residence in Ground Floor and first Floor. But it has been changed for the purpose of shops in ground floor and first floor, second floor as Kalyanamandapam 8 The entire building in 2nd Floor unauthorized. II. Additional Floors: Second Floor constructions III. Other requirements: Parking space 11. The officials of the CMDA inspected the building on 17 May 2002. The construction was not completed as on the said date. It was only under the said factual circumstances, the CMDA has stated that the builder is not eligible even to apply for regularization. The predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner filed various writ petitions before this Court to stall the proceedings initiated by the statutory body to demolish the illegal structure. 12. The regularization application filed by the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner has already been rejected. The said order has become final. The impugned notice dated 30 April 2010 is only a consequential notice on account of the rejection of application for regularization. When it is made out that the order rejecting the regularization application has become final, there is no question of interfering with the consequential notice. The petitioner knowing fully well that Thiru. V.S. Nagarajan has constructed the building without planning permission, purchased the property for a song, along with litigation. It is not as if the petitioner is an innocent purchaser. The background facts clearly show that the petitioner was in the know of things and neither he nor his predecessor-in-interest have any regard to the law of the land. They wanted to construct the building on their own, without any concern for the building laws and thereafter, wanted the construction to be regularized. There is no question of showing any kind of sympathy to builders like the petitioner. The building regulations are meant only for compliance and not for non compliance. 13. The Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority rejected the regularization application by order dated 6 June 2005. Thereafter demolition notice was issued on 10 June 2005. The predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner challenged the demolition notice in W.P. No. 23817 of 2005. The learned Single Judge by order dated 26 July 2005 directed the Government to dispose of the appeal on merits and till then, CMDA was directed to keep the demolition notice in abeyance. 14. The statutory appeal was rejected by the Government vide order in G.O. Ms.147, Housing and Urban Development Department, dated 28 February 2006. The learned Single Judge by order dated 26 July 2005 directed the Government to dispose of the appeal on merits and till then, CMDA was directed to keep the demolition notice in abeyance. 14. The statutory appeal was rejected by the Government vide order in G.O. Ms.147, Housing and Urban Development Department, dated 28 February 2006. The said order was challenged in W.P. No. 18659 of 2006. The learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition, recorded a factual finding, which reads thus: “7.Mr. K. Sukumaran, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that any benefit to which the petitioner may be entitled in view of the same Division Bench judgment, may also be made available to the petitioner. If the petitioner is entitled to any relief by virtue of any direction issued by the Division Bench in the aforesaid judgment, the dismissal of the writ petition will not stand in his way of seeking any relief in accordance with the same.” 15. It was only by making use of the observation in paragraph 7 of the order dated 11 January 2007 in W.P. No. 18659/2009, the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner approached the Monitoring Committee. 16. The case of the petitioner is not covered by the ordinance referred to in the writ petition. Even before the Ordinance, the regularization application submitted by the petitioner was rejected. The writ petition filed against the appellate order was also dismissed long before the ordinance. In view of the order in W.P. No. 18659/2006 and the categorical finding given by the learned Single Judge (which has become final), the petitioner who is the successor-in-interest of the developer is not entitled to make any kind of application for regularization. His case would not come under Section 113C of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act. W.P. No. 17639 of 2013: 17. The petitioner knowing very well that the building was constructed in violation of the building permission and the regularization application has already been rejected, wanted this Court to permit him to repair the building. The interim order granted by the learned Single Judge on 27 May 2010 to maintain status quo is now taken advantage of to obtain a restraint order against the respondents from interfering with his action to repair the building. The interim order granted by the learned Single Judge on 27 May 2010 to maintain status quo is now taken advantage of to obtain a restraint order against the respondents from interfering with his action to repair the building. Since it is very clear that the building owned by the petitioner was constructed in violation of the planning permission, there is no question of permission to repair the building. Action for demolition: 18. The CMDA has already issued demolition notice. The notice was directed to be kept pending till the disposal of the appeal, (vide order dated 27 July 2005 in W.P. No. 23817/2005). The appeal was thereafter rejected and it was upheld by this Court in W.P. No. 18659 of 2006. The CMDA should not have issued a fresh notice to the petitioner. By virtue of the dismissal of appeal, the earlier demolition notice got revived. The CMDA should have taken immediate action to demolish the building after the dismissal of W.P. No. 18659/2006. The officials of CMDA by giving a fresh notice dated 30 April 2010, assisted the petitioner to make out a cause of action to file a writ petition, to stall the demolition proceedings. 19. The unholy nexus between the builder and certain officials of the CMDA and Corporation gives encouragement to more and more people to violate the building laws with impunity. The present case is a typical example as to how a builder who constructed a building illegally was able to assign it to another, and the purchaser starting another round of litigation and action for regularization. 20. The petitioner is the successor in interest of Thiru. V.S. Nagarajan. This Court earlier passed an order holding that the construction was made after the cut-off date and the builder has no right even to apply for regularization. The said order would apply even to the petitioner. 21. In Royal Paradise Hotel (P) Ltd. v. State of Haryana, (2006) 7 SCC 597 : (2007) 1 MLJ 816, the appellant before the Supreme Court was a builder who purchased the building from a developer, to whom notices were issued to remove the unauthorized constructions. The appellant after the purchase of illegally constructed building, initiated fresh litigation. The Supreme Court held that the appellant being the assignee, is not entitled to take up the issue once again. The Supreme Court observed: “7. The appellant after the purchase of illegally constructed building, initiated fresh litigation. The Supreme Court held that the appellant being the assignee, is not entitled to take up the issue once again. The Supreme Court observed: “7. It is clear from the statement of the synopsis and list of dates furnished by the appellant itself, that on 4-2-1998, Mr. Chawla, who put up the construction before it was sold to the appellant received a notice under Section 12 of the Act informing him of contravention of Section 3 or Section 6 and of violation of Section 7(1) and Section 10 of the Act and directing him to stop further construction. When it was found that the appellant was defying the direction to stop, an order was passed on 26-2-1998 under sub-section (2) of Section 12 of the Act directing him to remove the unauthorised construction and to bring the site in conformity with the relevant provisions of the Act on finding that there was clear violation of Section 7 and Section 10 of the Act. On 16-3-1999, another notice was issued to Mr. Chawla mentioning therein that there is a contravention of Section 7(1) or Section 10 of the Act and directing removal of the unauthorised construction. The copies of the original notices are produced by the respondents along with the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of Respondents 1 to 3. Though the copies of such notices have been produced by the appellant also, we find that there are some omissions in the copies produced on behalf of the appellant. Whatever it be, the fact remains that the construction was made in the teeth of the notices and the directions to stop the unauthorised construction. Thus, the predecessor of the appellant put up the offending construction in a controlled area in defiance of the provisions of law preventing such a construction and in spite of notices and orders to stop the construction activity. The constructions put up are thus illegal and unauthorised and put up in defiance of law. The appellant is only an assignee from the person who put up such a construction and his present attempt is to defeat the statute and the statutory scheme of protecting the sides of highways in the interest of the general public and moving traffic on such highways. The appellant is only an assignee from the person who put up such a construction and his present attempt is to defeat the statute and the statutory scheme of protecting the sides of highways in the interest of the general public and moving traffic on such highways. Therefore, this is a fit case for refusal of interference by this Court against the decision declining the regularisation sought for by the appellant. Such violations cannot be compounded and the prayer of the appellant was rightly rejected by the authorities and the High Court was correct in dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant. It is time that the message goes aboard that those who defy the law would not be permitted to reap the benefit of their defiance of law and it is the duty of the High Courts to ensure that such defiers of law are not rewarded. The High Court was therefore fully justified in refusing to interfere in the matter. The High Court was rightly conscious of its duty to ensure that violators of law do not get away with it. 8. We also find no merit in the argument that regularisation of the acts of violation of the provisions of the Act ought to have been permitted. No authority administering municipal laws and other laws like the Act involved here, can encourage such violations. Even otherwise, compounding is not to be done when the violations are deliberate, designed, reckless or motivated. Marginal or insignificant accidental violations unconsciously made after trying to comply with all the requirements of the law can alone qualify for regularisation which is not the rule, but a rare exception. The authorities and the High Court were hence right in refusing the request of the appellant.” 22. The Supreme Court in Shanti Sports Club v. Union of India, AIR 2010 SC 433 : (2009) 15 SCC 705 : LNIND 2009 SC 1724 : (2009) 7 MLJ 258 indicated that no relief should be given to the violator of planning laws. The Supreme Court said: “74. In the last four decades, almost all cities, big or small, have seen unplanned growth. In the 21st century, the menace of illegal and unauthorised constructions and encroachments has acquired monstrous proportions and everyone has been paying heavy price for the same. The Supreme Court said: “74. In the last four decades, almost all cities, big or small, have seen unplanned growth. In the 21st century, the menace of illegal and unauthorised constructions and encroachments has acquired monstrous proportions and everyone has been paying heavy price for the same. Economically affluent people and those having support of the political and executive apparatus of the State have constructed buildings, commercial complexes, multiplexes, malls, etc. in blatant violation of the municipal and town planning laws, master plans, zonal development plans and even the sanctioned building plans. In most of the cases of illegal or unauthorised constructions, the officers of the municipal and other regulatory bodies turn blind eye either due to the influence of higher functionaries of the State or other extraneous reasons. Those who construct buildings in violation of the relevant statutory provisions, master plan, etc. and those who directly or indirectly abet such violations are totally unmindful of the grave consequences of their actions and/or omissions on the present as well as future generations of the country which will be forced to live in unplanned cities and urban areas. The people belonging to this class do not realise that the constructions made in violation of the relevant laws, master plan or zonal development plan or sanctioned building plan or the building is used for a purpose other than the one specified in the relevant statute or the master plan, etc., such constructions put unbearable burden on the public facilities/amenities like water, electricity, sewerage, etc. apart from creating chaos on the roads. The pollution caused due to traffic congestion affects the health of the road users. The pedestrians and people belonging to weaker sections of the society, who cannot afford the luxury of air-conditioned cars, are the worst victims of pollution. They suffer from skin diseases of different types, asthma, allergies and even more dreaded diseases like cancer. It can only be a matter of imagination how much the Government has to spend on the treatment of such persons and also for controlling pollution and adverse impact on the environment due to traffic congestion on the roads and chaotic conditions created due to illegal and unauthorised constructions. It can only be a matter of imagination how much the Government has to spend on the treatment of such persons and also for controlling pollution and adverse impact on the environment due to traffic congestion on the roads and chaotic conditions created due to illegal and unauthorised constructions. This Court has, from time to time, taken cognizance of buildings constructed in violation of municipal and other laws and emphasised that no compromise should be made with the town planning scheme and no relief should be given to the violator of the town planning scheme, etc. on the ground that he has spent substantial amount on construction of the buildings, etc.” 23. The Supreme Court in Priyanka Estates International (P) Ltd. v. State of Assam AIR 2010 SC 1030 : (2010) 2 SCC 27 : LNIND 2009 SC 2062 : (2010) 1 MLJ 1005, considered the issue regarding illegal construction and observed thus: “55. It is a matter of common knowledge that illegal and unauthorised constructions beyond the sanctioned plans are on rise, may be due to paucity of land in big cities. Such activities are required to be dealt with by firm hands otherwise builders/colonisers would continue to build or construct beyond the sanctioned and approved plans and would still go scot-free. Ultimately, it is the flat owners who fall prey to such activities as the ultimate desire of a common man is to have a shelter of his own. Such unlawful constructions are definitely against the public interest and hazardous to the safety of occupiers and residents of multistoreyed buildings. To some extent both parties can be said to be equally responsible for this. Still the greater loss would be of those flat owners whose flats are to be demolished as compared to the builder.” 24. The Supreme Court in Esha Ekta Apartments Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. and Others v. Municipal Corporation of Mumbai and Others, AIR 2013 SC 1861 : (2013) 5 SCC 357 : LNIND 2013 SC 163 deprecated the practice of constructing buildings without plan and permit. 25. The jurisdiction under Section 226 of the Constitution of India is an equity jurisdiction. The equity jurisdiction cannot be extended to aid those who are indulging in unauthorized construction. Those who have no respect to the law of the land have no right to invoke the equity jurisdiction. 26. 25. The jurisdiction under Section 226 of the Constitution of India is an equity jurisdiction. The equity jurisdiction cannot be extended to aid those who are indulging in unauthorized construction. Those who have no respect to the law of the land have no right to invoke the equity jurisdiction. 26. The petitioner knowing fully well that the CMDA has earlier issued a demolition notice, which was upheld by this Court, purchased the “Litigation Property” and raked up a dead issue. The petitioner obtained an interim order on 27 May 2010 without impleading the CMDA as a party notwithstanding the demolition order issued earlier by the said authority. The petitioner made an attempt to stay the demolition order without impleading necessary parties as respondents in the writ petition. The petitioner is therefore, liable to pay exemplary costs for playing fraud on the Court and filing writ petitions in concluded matters. Electricity and water connection without completion certificate : 27. We have put a question to the learned counsel for CMDA as to how the developer got electricity, water and sewerage connection without obtaining completion certificate from CMDA. The learned Standing Counsel submitted that the builders have now invented a novel device by filing writ petition directing the authorities to provide electricity, water and sewerage connection without insisting completion certificate from CMDA. 28. Regulation No. 4(5) of Development Regulations approved by the Government of Tamil Nadu in G.O. Ms. 190, Housing and Urban Development Department dated 2 September 2008 reads thus : “Completion Certificate: (a)The Applicant/owner/Builder/Promoter/ Power of Attorney Holder and any other person who is acquiring interest shall not put the building to use without obtaining Completion Certificate from CMDA for ‘Special buildings’, Group Developments, Multi-storied Buildings, and Institutional buildings (exceeding 300M2 in floor area) and such other developments as may be notified by the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority from time to time. (b) The Applicant/ Owner/ Builder/ Promoter/ Power of Attorney Holder and any other person who is acquiring interest shall submit application in complete shape for issue of Completion Certificate before probable date of completion, and CMDA/Local Body concerned, which had issued PP, shall dispose of such application”. 29. The Division Bench in Consumer Action Group, rep. (b) The Applicant/ Owner/ Builder/ Promoter/ Power of Attorney Holder and any other person who is acquiring interest shall submit application in complete shape for issue of Completion Certificate before probable date of completion, and CMDA/Local Body concerned, which had issued PP, shall dispose of such application”. 29. The Division Bench in Consumer Action Group, rep. by its Trustee v. State of Tamil Nadu, by its Secretary to Government, Law Department, 2006 (4) CTC 483 : LNIND 2006 MAD 1863 : (2007) 1 MLJ 897 , held that water and electricity connection should be contingent on completion certificate. Sl. No. (ix) of the direction reads thus: “(ix) To avoid future violations, buildings should be certified as having been constructed in compliance of planning permit and other applicable laws. The Certifying Officer will be personally responsible if any illegal building is certified. Electricity, water connection and occupation should be contingent on such certificate. In respect of the builders who have been identified by the Monitoring Committee as having put up illegal buildings, constructions by such builders should be certified for compliance only by the Chief Planner, who shall bear personal responsibility.” 30. The Development Control Rules prohibit use of building without obtaining completion certificate. The direction to provide electricity, water and sewerage connection without insisting Completion Certificate from CMDA would amount to permission to put the building to use which is prohibited by statute. The Electricity, Water and Sewerage Boards are not bound to entertain application for such amenities without submitting the Completion Certificate issued by CMDA. 31. The authorities exercising statutory functions under various enactments must assist CMDA to implement the Development Control Rules. If such authorities entertain request and provide electricity, water and sewerage connection, it would help the builder to bypass the mandatory requirement of the Statute, requiring completion certificate to occupy the building. We therefore hold that the Chennai Metro Water Supply and Sewerage Board and Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, have no authority to issue electricity, water and sewerage connection without producing of the Completion Certificate from CMDA. We are therefore of the view that the builders have no right to approach the Court for mandamus to provide electricity, water and sewerage connection, without insisting completion certificate from CMDA. 32. We are therefore of the view that the builders have no right to approach the Court for mandamus to provide electricity, water and sewerage connection, without insisting completion certificate from CMDA. 32. We, therefore, by following Consumer Action Group, hold that writ petition for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to direct TANGEDCO and TNWSS Board to provide electricity, water and sewerage connection and the Corporation/ local body to assess the building and to provide door number, without insisting Completion Certificate from CMDA is not maintainable. Conclusion: 33. The petitioner, being the successor-in-interest of the building, constructed without planning permission, is not entitled to any kind of indulgence from the High Court exercising equity jurisdiction. 34. The Member Secretary, CMDA, is directed to take follow up action pursuant to the notice dated 10 June 2005 forthwith in accordance with law. 35. In the upshot, we dismiss the writ petitions with cost quantified at Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) payable to the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority, within a period of two weeks from today. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed. Petitions dismissed.