2025:MHC:539 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 20.02.2025 CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY W.P.No.37720 of 2024 and W.M.P.No. 40776 of 2024 1. VENKATACHALAM

2. DHINAKAR ... Petitioners Vs

1. THE TAHSILDAR, SULUR TALUK, COIMBATORE DISTRICT.

2. THE REVENUE INSPECTOR, VAARAPATTI, SULUR TALUK, COIMBATORE DISTRICT.

3. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, SULTHANPET, SULUR TALUK, COIMBATORE DISTRICT.

4. THE VILLAGE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, MALAIPALAYAM VILLAGE, SULUR TALUK, COIMBATORE DISTRICT.

5. M.MANDHIRAGIRI ... Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for the issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the order dated 28.10.2024 in Na.Ka.No.3187/ 2024/A4 passed by the 1^st respondent, quash the same and consequently direct the respondents 1 to 4 not to cause any hindrance to the Poultry farm activities of the petitioners in S.F.

No.324/1C in Malaipalayam Village of Sulur Taluk in Coimbatore District.

For Petitioners : Mr.N.Ponraj For R1 to R4 : Mr.R.Murthi Government Advocate For R5 : 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 Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 and as such, it is not a development under Section 2(13)(e) of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act 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 ad