SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Mad) 2509

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, K. RAJASEKAR, JJ.
C. Swaminathan - Petitioner 
Versus 
State of Tamil Nadu, represented by its Secretary to Government, Housing and Urban Development Department, Secretariat and Ors. – Respondents 
W.P.No.12924 of 2024 and WMP.No.14088 of 2024
Decided On : 29-04-2025


Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. K. Premkumar.
For the Respondents: Mrs. E. Ranganayaki, Additional Government Pleader, Mr. R. Sivakumar Standing Counsel, Mr. D.B.R. Prabhu, Standing Counsel for GCC, Mr. P.J. Rishikesh.

The court reaffirmed that enforcement actions against unauthorized constructions must proceed without delay, despite pending regularization applications, emphasizing the need for discretion in granting regularization under the Town and Country Planning Act.

Headnote:(A) Town and Country Planning Act - Building Plan Violations - Mandamus - Petitioner seeks enforcement of orders from previous writ petitions regarding building plan violations - Court emphasized that regularization of unauthorized construction should not be routine and should adhere to specific criteria. (Paras 1-4)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner compelled respondents to act on earlier decisions regarding unauthorized constructions at specified locations in Chennai. Enforcement actions were deemed necessary despite pending regularization applications.

Findings of Court:
The court ordered that enforcement actions be completed within eight weeks, following proper procedures.

Issues: The key issue was the necessity of enforcement action against unauthorized construction despite pending regularization applications.

Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that the Town and Country Planning Act necessitates strict action against unauthorized constructions and regularization should only occur under deserving circumstances, ensuring that objectives of the Act are not compromised.

Result: Writ Petition disposed of with a directive for action.

Table of Content
1. writ of mandamus for building violations. (Para 1)
2. petition for enforcement action. (Para 2)
3. regularisation of unauthorized construction is not routine. (Para 3 , 4)
4. enforcement actions to be completed in 8 weeks. (Para 5 , 6)

ORDER :

(S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, J.)

The writ of mandamus has been instituted to direct the respondents 1 to 5 herein to take immediate action against the 6th respondent as per the orders passed in W.P.No.11201 of 2010 dated 10.02.2010 and W.P.No.13053 of 2010 dated 03.08.2010 for committing the Building Plan violations in the premises viz., R.C. Towers, bearing Door No.82/27, Josier Street, Nungambakkam, Chennai - 34 and adjoining Building at Door No.143, Kodambakkam High Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai - 34.

2. The petitioner seeks a direction to take enforcement action as per the earlier orders passed by this Court.

3. It is brought to the notice of this Court that an application seeking regularisation of unauthorised construction is submitted. Pendency of an application is not a bar for initiating enforcement action under the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act. Regularisation cannot be granted in a routine manner. Regularisation of unauthorised construction is an exception and the power is to be exercised discreetly only in deserving cases. The power of grant of exception cannot be exercised in a routine manner, so as to defeat the objectives of the Town and Country Planning Act and grant of Building Plan Approvals.

4. Therefore, there is no impediment for completing the enforcement action by following the procedures as contemplated.

5. Mr.D.B.R. Prabhu, the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the Greater Chennai Corporation would furnish the copy of FORM-VII, Lock and Seal order dated 08.01.2025.

6. It is for the aggrieved person to prefer a revision, if he prefers to do so. As far as the Official respondents are concerned, they shall continue the enforcement action by following the procedures as contemplated. The enforcement actions are directed to be completed within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top