IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.M. Subramaniam, C. Kumarappan, JJ.
R. Ashokan - Petitioner
Versus
The Block Development Officer Udhagamandalam - Respondent
WP No. 648 of 2026
Decided On : 20-01-2026
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to notice regarding unauthorized construction. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. provisions of the act for building permission and unauthorized construction. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. unified application of statutes for building permission. (Para 7) |
| 4. petitioner's building sealed; revision to government allowed. (Para 8) |
| 5. writ petition dismissed; government to decide on merits. (Para 9 , 10) |
ORDER :
S.M. Subramaniam J.
Notice dated 24.10.2025 issued under Section 56 (2A) of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”), with regard to the unauthorised construction is under challenge in the present writ proceeding.
2. A complaint was given against the petitioner’s property that he has encroached upon the Government land. During the course of inspection, authorities found that there is no encroachment of land, but unauthorised constructions are found. Thus, Executive Authority of Panchayat initiated action against unauthorised construction under the provisions of the Act.
3. Scheme under the Act would contemplate that an application seeking permission is to be filed under Section 49 of the Act. Based on the application, competent authority, after scrutiny may grant permission for construction of a building, as per the approved planning permission. Section 56 of the Act provides Power to require removal of unauthorised development. Sub-Section (2-A) to Section 56 enumerates that,
“(2-A) If the owner or occupier, as the case may be, of land or building has not discontinued, the use of such land or building as required in the notice served under subsection (1), within the time specified therein, the appropriate planning authority if prima facie satisfied, may take action to discontinue the use of such land or building by locking and sealing the premises in such manner as may be prescribed irrespective of pendency of any application under section 49 or appeal under section 79 or any litigation before a court. The owner or occupier, as the case may be, of such land or building shall provide security for such sealed premises.”
4. Even at the stage of Section 56, there is a scope for the owner of the building to correct unauthorised portion or to seek revised permission as required under the Rules. Section 56(3) provides scope for seeking permission under Section 49 for the retention of the land, or any buildings or works or for the continuance of any use of the land or building to which the notice relates. However, such revised permission must be in accordance with the Rules. Therefore, Act paves way for developer or owner to secure a revised permission, which can be granted in accordance with the Rules. If no such permission was obtained even during the course of construction, and if any developer or owner continue to commit violation of the building plan permission, then authorities are empowered to invoke Section 57 and issue stop-work order for unauthorised developments. Section 57 of the Act provides power to stop unauthorised development. Once stop-work order has been issued under Section 57 of the Act, an aggrieved person may prefer a revision under Section 80(A) of the Act before the Government. Section 80(A) provides special powers to Government to conduct an enquiry and pass appropriate orders on merits. Sub-section (3) to Section 80(A) empowers the Government to pass interim orders pending revision. When the scheme of the Act contemplates various procedures and enforcement action at various stages of the development of a building, then said procedure is to be followed scrupulously by the authorities. Persons seeking building plan permission under Section 49 of the Act, on such permission, is expected to put up construction strictly in accordance with building plan permission granted. Violation would result in initiation of enforcement action and demolition of unauthorised construction by following the procedures as contemplated under the Act and the Rules framed thereunder.
The Commissioner, Udhagamandalam Municipality Vs. L.Loganathan
South India Corporation (P) Ltd. Vs. Secy., Board of Revenue, Trivandrum
AI
The court held that the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act mandates strict compliance with procedures for building permissions and enforcement actions regarding unauthorized constructions.
Building permissions in hill stations must comply with specific regulations outlined in the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, overriding general master plans.
Special rules governing building permissions in hill stations prevail over general laws to ensure environmental protection, emphasizing legislative intent against construction near reserve forests.
The amalgamation of residential buildings into commercial use without proper authorization violates the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act.
Adherence to planning regulations is crucial, and unauthorized constructions can be legally demolished by authorities, following proper procedures and relevant statutes.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.