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

2025 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 9673

HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J
venkatachalam – Appellant
Versus
the tahsildar – Respondent


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

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 Tam

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 telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top