Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(SC) 988

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
UJJAL BHUYAN, ATUL S. CHANDURKAR, JJ.
G. Sathyanarayana Bothra & Others – Appellant
Versus
M.D. Lokeswari & Another – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 10045 of 2026
Decided On : 22-08-2026

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Balaji Srinivasan, AOR Ms. Amrit Sharma, Adv. Mr. Vishwaditya Sharma, Adv. Ms. Harsha Tripathi, Adv. Mr. Subornadeep Bhattacharjee, Adv. Ms. Aakriti Priya, Adv. Mr. Shiva Krishnamurthy, Adv. Ms. Kanishka Singh, Adv. Ms. Suganya T.S., Adv. Mr. Parikshit Pitale, Adv. Mr. Vignesh Venkatachalam, Adv. Mr. Rohan Dewan, Adv. Mr. Venkat Vignesh, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. G. Anto Robert, Adv. Ms. Neya A.S., Adv. Mr. Jose Abraham, AOR M/S. Alliance Juris, AOR Ms. Jayasree Narasimhan, AOR Mr. Siddheesh Yadav, Adv. Ms. G. Indira, AOR

The High Court cannot pass a demolition order ignoring its own earlier order restraining coercive steps pending Supreme Court's decision on regularisation of unauthorised constructions. Judicial consistency requires adherence to earlier orders.

Headnote:(A) Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 - Section 113-C - Regularisation of unauthorised constructions - Government Orders Nos.110 and 111 dated 22.06.2017 - High Court's order dated 27.09.2023 restraining coercive steps pending disposal of regularisation issue before Supreme Court - Subsequent order dated 28.04.2025 directing demolition of unauthorised constructions - Inconsistent orders - Not sustainable.

(B) Civil Procedure - Judicial discipline - Consistency of orders - A court cannot pass an order contrary to its own earlier order on the same subject matter without taking it into consideration - Pendency of regularisation application and pending appeals before Supreme Court are relevant factors - Status quo to be maintained.

Facts of the case:
Appellants and first respondent are residents of a building. Appellants purchased portions under MOU with builder. First respondent complained of unauthorized constructions. CMDA issued notices. Appellants filed regularisation application under Section 113-C. Government orders under which regularisation was sought were held invalid by High Court but the matter is pending in Supreme Court. In earlier writ petition (WP No.25737/2023), High Court directed CMDA not to take coercive steps against appellants until Supreme Court decides. Subsequently, first respondent filed WP No.12779/2024 seeking removal. High Court (Division Bench) on 28.04.2025 directed CMDA to remove unauthorized constructions within eight weeks. Appellants appealed.

Findings of Court:
The Supreme Court held that the earlier order dated 27.09.2023 bound the CMDA. The High Court in the subsequent proceedings should have considered that order. Issuing a direction to demolish despite pendency of regularisation and pending appeals results in inconsistent orders. The impugned order is unsustainable. Parties to be governed by the earlier order; status quo to be maintained.

Issues: Whether the High Court could direct removal of unauthorized constructions while its earlier order restraining coercive steps was still in force and the regularisation issue was pending before the Supreme Court.

Ratio Decidendi: The High Court must take into consideration its own earlier order on the same subject matter. An order passed in ignorance of or contrary to an earlier binding order is unsustainable. Pendency of regularisation application and pending appeals before the Supreme Court are relevant circumstances that preclude coercive action until final decision.

Result: Civil Appeal allowed. Impugned order dated 28.04.2025 set aside. Parties to be governed by order dated 27.09.2023. Status quo to be maintained. No costs. Pending I.A. disposed of. Parties: Appellants, first respondent, and second respondent (development authority). No dissenting opinion.

Legal Category Hierarchy

Table of Content
1. factual background and procedural history of the dispute. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 6 , 7 , 8)
2. court's reasoning on binding effect of prior order and inconsistency. (Para 9 , 10)
3. final order setting aside impugned order and maintaining status quo. (Para 11)

JUDGMENT

ATUL S. CHANDURKAR, J.

1. The appellants and the first respondent are residents of a building known as ‘Indira Arcade’. While the appellants have purchased portion of area on the ground floor to the third floor as well as a portion on the fourth floor, pursuant to a Memorandum of Understanding with M/s Indira Foundations Private Limited, the first respondent being the daughter of the owner of the plot on which the building was erected occupies a portion on the second floor of the said building. The grievance of the first respondent is with regard to excess construction/unauthorised construction/ deviations effected at the instance of the appellants on the portions owned by them and also in the building. A direction having been issued by the Division Bench of the Madras High Court [For short, ‘the High Court’] to the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority [For short, ‘CMDA’], the second respondent, to remove the unauthorised constructions/deviations by the order dated 28.04.2025 in the writ petition preferred by the first respondent, the appellants, being aggrieved have challenged the said order.

2. It is not necessary to refer to various factual aspects. Suffice it to state that initially, the father of the first respondent had filed Writ Petition No.21661/2017 before the High Court with a prayer for issuance of a direction to the CMDA to consider his representation dated 07.07.2017 in the matter of unauthorised construction undertaken by the appellants. By the order dated 28.03.2018, the appellants were directed to rectify the defects in respect of violated portions of the building by 08.06.2018. The writ petition was disposed of but for the purposes of reporting compliance, it was directed to be listed on 22.06.2018. The appellants on 06.06.2018 moved an application for regularisation of the deviations in question. The regularisation was sought under Section 113-C of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 [For short, ‘the Act of 1971’] read with Government Order [For short, ‘G.O.’] Nos.110 and 111 dated 22.06.2017.

3. When the aforesaid writ petition was considered for reporting compliance, an undertaking was filed on behalf of the appellants indicating the action taken by them pursuant to the earlier order. The relevant portion of the order of the High Court dated 28.06.2018 reads as under:

“Today when the petition is taken up for hearing, the 6th respondent has filed an affidavit on behalf of the respondents 4 to 7 stating as follows:

"3. I submit that as per the undertaking given by me before this Hon'ble Court, I have removed the 5th floor and as well as the basement internal partitions. Made it usable for parking of vehicles. In so as far as the 4th floor of concerned I have already applied for regularisation under Sec. 113C of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act to CMDA and the same is pending. In fact after the rectification of 08.06.2018 by enclosing the photographs.

Taking note of the fact that the basement portion has been fully demolished and that an application is pending under the Town and Country Planning Act, this Court, by recording the undertaking and submissions is of the considered view that no further orders are required”.

The application for regularisation in the meanwhile was pending with the CMDA. The first respondent thereafter on 21.04.2023 issued another communication to the CMDA calling upon it to take appropriate action with regard to the deviations/unauthorised construction that continued to exist at the building. The first respondent then preferred Writ Petition No. 17682/2023 with a prayer to direct the CMDA to decide her representation dated 21.04.2023. The High Court by its order dated 15.06.202

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis

2026 Supreme(SC) 988

SUPREME COURT OF INDIAUJJAL BHUYAN, ATUL S. CHANDURKAR, JJ.G. Sathyanarayana Bothra & Others – AppellantVersusM.D. Lokeswari & Another – RespondentsCivil Appeal No. 10045 of 2026Decided On : 22-08-2026

The High Court cannot pass a demolition order ignoring its own earlier order restraining coercive steps pending Supreme Court's decision on regularisation of unauthorised constructions. Judicial consistency requires adherence to earlier orders.

Legal Category Hierarchy

Judicial Analysis

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
UJJAL BHUYAN, ATUL S. CHANDURKAR, JJ.
G. Sathyanarayana Bothra & Others – Appellant
Versus
M.D. Lokeswari & Another – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 10045 of 2026
Decided On : 22-08-2026