Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 55056
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, A.D.MARIA CLETE, JJ
M.Daniel Simiyon Sudan – Appellant
Versus
The District Collector, Tiruchirappalli District – Respondent
W.P(MD)No.3482 of 2025 | W.M.P.(MD) No.2464 of 2025
For the Petitioner: Mr.M.Dinesh Hari Sudarsan
For Respondent: Mr.M.Sarangan (R1 to R4 & R6)
Additional Government Pleader: Mr.M.Karthikeya Venkatachalapathy (R5)
Unauthorized constructions require prior permission; regularization is not a guaranteed right and strict compliance with relevant laws is mandatory.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Writ for Mandamus filed to remove unauthorized construction - Petitioner alleged construction without permission, authorities required to act under the relevant law - Fifth respondent contended application for approval is obstructed, seeks regularization - Court emphasizes adherence to obtaining permission before construction and strict enforcement against unauthorized structures. (Paras 1, 5, 12)
(B) Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Act - Section 135 and Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act, 1994 - Court clarifies provisions regulating unauthorized construction, stresses regularization is not an absolute right and referencing Section 56 of the Town and Country Planning Act underlines necessity for demolition of unauthorized developments. (Paras 6, 11)
(C) Enforcement and Accountability - Court reinforces Attorney General's directives and necessity of strict compliance with rules to prevent unauthorized constructions, emphasizing the requirement of obtaining a completion/occupation certificate before use. (Paras 20, 21)
Facts of the case:
The writ petition seeks the removal of an unauthorized rice mill constructed without permission in a specific area; complaints were made resulting in inaction from authorities, compelling litigation.
Findings of Court:
The court directed the immediate initiation of actions to demolish identified unauthorized constructions within eight weeks.
Issues: The core issues pertained to the legality of construction, the necessity of prior permission, and provisions addressing unauthorized structures.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that unauthorized constructions threaten public safety and must be strictly regulated; regularization is a privilege, not a right.
Result: The writ petition stands disposed of, with directions for enforcement action to be commenced.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. unauthorized construction must adhere to procedural regulations. (Para 1 , 2 , 19) |
| 2. defendant claims obstruction to obtaining construction approval due to personal disputes. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. regularization is not an inherent right; strict enforcement against unauthorized structures is mandated. (Para 11 , 13 , 15) |
| 4. court emphasized the need for enforcement and compliance with building regulations. (Para 20 , 21 , 24) |
O R D E R
[Order of the Court was made by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.]
The Writ on hand has been instituted to direct the respondents to remove the unauthorised constitution/rice mill put up by the fifth respondent in S.No.83/3A, Thayanur Group Punganur Village, Srirangam Taluk, Tiruchirappalli District.
2.The learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the fifth respondent constructed a rice mill without obtaining building plan permission. The petitioner has given a complaint for removal of unauthorised construction. Since no action has been taken by the competent authorities, the present writ petition came to be instituted.
3.The learned Additional Government Pleader based on the written instructions would submit that the building was constructed without obtaining building plan permission. Therefore, the authorities are bound to initiate action for removal of unauthorized construction by following the procedures as contemplated under the relevant Act and Rules. The fifth respondent has admittedly constructed the building without obtaining building plan permission. Therefore, the authorities will initiate enforcement action under law.
4.The learned Counsel for the fifth respondent would strenuously oppose by stating that the fifth respondent submitted an application seeking building plan approval, which has been obstructed by the petitioner based on certain personal vengeance. Dispute exists among the fifth respondent, Panchayat President and the petitioner, which resulted in non-consideration of the application submitted by the fifth respondent for granting of building plan permission. Thus, the fifth respondent may be permitted to persue the application and till such time, no action to be taken.
5.The learned Counsel for the fifth respondent admitted the fact that the building was constructed without getting a building plan permission. However the fifth respondent may submit an application under Section 135 of the Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Act. However, he seeks that the said illegality can be cured by granting regularization.
Therefore, the present writ petition is to be rejected.
6.The learned Additional Government Pleader would oppose by stating that in the present case, the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Act has no application since the subject building is falling under the provisions of Tamil Nadu Panchayat Act, 1994. The subject property is situated within the jurisdiction of Punganur Village Panchayat and thus, Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Act has no application at all.
7.However, Section 135 of the Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Act is an enabling provision which is to be applied in exceptional circumstances, which would not defeat the very purpose of the Act and Rules so as to ensure that the buildings are constructed after obtaining building plan permission from the competent authorities.
8.It is needless to say that conceptually under various provisions of the Act, it is reiterated that no building must be constructed without prior permission of the competent authority under the relevant provisions of the Act and Rules. Sub rule (1) to Rule 4 of Tamil Nadu Combined Development and Building Rules 2019 in unequivocal terms mandates that "no person shall carryout any development or construction of building or structure, Subdivision, layout, reconstitution or amalgamation of land or change of use of land or building without the written permission of the competent authority".
9.Rule 22 of the said Rules deals with illegal developments. It stipulates " if any construction o
