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

2025 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 9673

HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J
venkatachalam – Appellant
Versus
the tahsildar – Respondent
W.P.No.37720 of 2024



Advocates:
Mr.N.Ponraj, Mr.R.Murthi Government Advocate, Mr.P.Nethaji

The court ruled that poultry farming for 4,500 chicks qualifies as agricultural activity under the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, thus not requiring permission from local authorities.

Headnote:(A) Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 - Sections 2(1) and 2(13) - Writ petition challenging order to stop construction of poultry farm - Petitioners proposed to rear 4,500 chicks, claiming it falls under 'agriculture' - Tahsildar's order based on requirement for consent from authorities deemed unsustainable - Court found no change of use, thus no permission required. (Paras 2, 3, 9)

(B) Definition of 'agriculture' - Court emphasized that agricultural activities do not require permission unless exceeding specified thresholds - Activities on land appurtenant to a building do not automatically disqualify it from being agricultural. (Paras 7, 8)

Facts of the case:
Petitioners sought to construct a poultry farm for 4,500 chicks, previously granted no objection certificates, but faced an order to cease construction based on alleged regulatory violations.

Findings of Court:
The court ruled that the petitioners' activities fell within the definition of agriculture and did not constitute development requiring permission.

Issues: Whether the petitioners' poultry farm activities required consent from authorities and if they constituted a change of use.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the activities did not amount to development under the Act, thus no permission was necessary, reaffirming the definition of agriculture.

Result: Writ petition allowed.

ORDER

This writ petition is filed challenging the impugned order in Na.Ka.No.3187/ 2024/A4 dated 28.10.2024.

2. The grievance of the petitioners is that the petitioners are constructing a building for the purpose of running a poultry farm. The petitioners are proposing to rear 4,500 chicks. Accordingly, earlier no objection certificates were given, but when the petitioners started putting up the relevant structures for the same purposes, suddenly the impugned order was passed upon a representation made by the fifth respondent. By the impugned order, the Tahsildar directed the petitioners to stop all activities on two grounds. He found that if the petitioners are going to rear more than 5,000 chicks, they must obtain consent to establish and consent to operate from the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board to establish the farm. Secondly, the petitioners have not obtained permission from the local or other planning authority in respect of the developments made under the Tamil Nadu Combined Building Rules, 2019.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the activity carried out by the petitioners falls within the definition of “agriculture” as per Section 2(1) of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act , 1971 and as such, it is not a development under Section 2(13)(e) of the and therefore no permission is necessary. Only when the petitioners crossed the threshold limit of 25,000 chicks, the consent to establish and consent to operate from the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board is necessary. Therefore, the impugned order should be set aside.

4. The learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 to 4, would submit that in this case, the petitioners are proposing to keep only 4500 chicks. Furthermore, the impugned order was passed because no permission was obtained from the local authority.

5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of fifth respondent would submit that from the definition of Section 2(1) of the Act itself, it is clear that, it does not include land that is appurtenant to any building. Admittedly, in this case, the petitioners are constructing a building. Therefore, this would be a change of use and the petitioners cannot claim that it is for agricultural use. Consequently, this will come within the definition of development. Once it falls under the definition of development, the petitioners have to take permission from the appropriate authorities before putting up the construction under the relevant rules. Once the change of user is made, the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of S.Nandhakumar vs. State of Tamil Nadu in W.P.No. 814 of 2024 , has laid down the position that permission has to be obtained.

6. I have considered the rival submissions made on either side and perused the material records of the case.

7. Firstly, it is the admitted position that the petitioners are going to rear only 4,500 chicks. That being the case, it is clear that no consent to establish or consent to operate is necessary. The second question that is to be decided is whether or not the petitioners should obtain permission from the local authority. The definition under Section 2(1) of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act , 1971 reads as follows:-

“Section 2(1) “agriculture” includes horticulture, fruit-growing, seed growing, dairyfarming, livestock-breeding, the use of land as grazing land, or any other use of land where such other use is ancillary to any agricultural purposes; but does not include the use of any land attached to a building for the purpose of a garden to be used along with such building; and “agricultural” shall be construed accordingly”

The definition of 'development' that is under Section 2(13), reads as follows:-

Section 2(13) ‘development” means the carrying out of all or any of the works contemplated in a regional plan, master plan, detailed development plan or a new town development plan prepared under this Act, and shall include the carrying out of buildi

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
whatsapp-icon Back to top