A subsequent occupier without a lease has no legal claim over property, and unauthorized constructions are subject to demolition under the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act.

ORDER :

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.

The lis on hand has been instituted challenging the Revision Order passed by the Government in proceedings dated 12.09.2024 under Section 80-A of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") and the consequential De-occupation Notice dated 21.01.2025, issued by the Greater Chennai Corporation

2. The petitioner states that she is in possession of the subject property as described in the writ proceedings.

3. Admittedly, the subject property belongs to Arulmighu Thiruvalleeswarar Thirukovil, Padi, Chennai. The house existed was in dilapidated condition and she has constructed a small house. However, the petitioner admits that no Building Plan Permission has been obtained from Chennai Corporation for construction of a house.

4. Mr.S.Illamvaludhi, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is a daily wage employee and constructed a small house for her residence. Therefore, the same need not be construed as unauthorised construction. It is further contended that the extent of the land is below 300 sq.ft. Therefore, no permission is required.

5. Mr.N.R.R.Arun Natarajan, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the HR & CE Department would submit that the petitioner is not at all a lessee of the temple. One Mrs.Malliga was the tenant and she died on 20.05.2015. Thereafter, the temple has not leased out in favour of the petitioner and she become the subsequent occupier of the temple property.

6. The Greater Chennai Corporation issued a hearing notice for personal hearing vide proceedings dated 30.08.2023. Locking and Sealing and Demolition notice dated 05.09.2019 was issued. The process of enquiry was conducted by Chennai Corporation and the temple Authorities participated. The Corporation found that the petitioner has not obtained any Building Plan Permission and the subject building is wholly unathorised. The temple Authorities established that they have not leased out the property in favour of the petitioner and she is the subsequent occupier, occupied the property after the death of the original lessee late Mrs.Malliga.

7. The petitioner preferred a revision before the Government under Section 80-A of the Act. The Government conducted an enquiry by affording opportunity to all the parties. The impugned Government Order dated 12.09.2024 reveals that the writ petitioner earlier filed W.P.No.3343 of 2024 and the same is pending. The Government filed a status report in the said writ petition. Meanwhile, Arulmigu Thiruvalleeswarar Thirukovil represented by its Executive Officer filed W.P.No.23263 of 2019 to initiate action against the unauthorised construction put up by the writ petitioner. The Division Bench of this Court passed orders on 21.06.2023 as under:

"5. Therefore, we direct the respondents 1 and 2/Corporation of Chennai / its concerned officials, to take necessary action for removal of the unauthorised construction in the property in question, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner - Temple through its Executive Officer, respondents 3 and 4 and any person aggrieved, if any, within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

6. With the above observations/directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, W.M.P. is closed."

8. The Government provided personal hearing to the revision petitioner/writ petitioner. The facts placed before the Government by the parties and the grounds raised are elaborately considered. The Government dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioner mainly on the ground that the petitioner is not the owner of the land, which belongs to the temple and the petitioner has put up construction unauthorisedly without obtaining Building Plan Permission from the Chennai Corporation. Consequently, the Government directed the Greater Chennai Corporation Authorities to proceed and to ta