P.Pison vs The Director / Assistant Director (FAC), District Town and Country Planning Office, Kanyakumari District

Headnote Court Copy Facts Arguments Court observation Judicial Analysis Case Map Category Hierarchy Table of Content

2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 55992

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, G.ARUL MURUGAN, JJ
P.Pison – Appellant
Versus
The Director / Assistant Director (FAC), District Town and Country Planning Office, Kanyakumari District – Respondent
W.P.(MD).No.13749 of 2025

Important Points

The court affirmed the validity of administrative actions against unauthorized constructions unless jurisdiction or malafide intent is established.

Subject

Property Law - Town Planning

Act Referred

Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act: S.56, S.80A

Headnote

This judgment addresses the legality of a notice issued under Section 56(1) of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971. The petitioner contends the notice is invalid; however, the court finds no merit in the claim as the notice follows a lawful inspection revealing unauthorized constructions, posing public risks. The court determines such notices are valid unless issued without jurisdiction or malafide intent. Consequently, the Writ Petition is dismissed.

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.K.Rajeshwaran
For the Respondents: Mr.J.Ashok, Mr.F.Deepak

Table of Content
1. challenge to notice under planning act. (Para 1)
2. court's observations on unauthorized constructions. (Para 2 , 3 , 4)

(Order of the Court was made by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.)

The notice issued under Section 56 (1) of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act , 1971 in Notice No.314/2025/KKDTCP dated

19.03.2025, is under challenge in the present Writ Petition.

2. No Writ against the notice is maintainable unless such notice has been issued by an incompetent authority having no jurisdiction or tainted with the allegations of malafides. Notice for locking and sealing is a step taken by the authorities after conducting a field inspection and after ascertaining the fact that the building is unauthorised one. If at all the petitioner has any ground, he has to prefer a revision before the Government under Section 80A of the Town and Country Planning Act. Therefore, the Writ Court cannot adjudicate disputed facts of this nature.

3. Unauthorised constructions are posing danger to public at large. Such constructions are not only causing environmental damage, but also a threat to the road users and neighbours. Therefore, there cannot be any misplaced sympathy against the unauthorised constructions made by any person.

4. In the present case, the authorities found that the subject building has unauthorised constructions and thereafter, issued notice for removal of unauthorised construction under Section 56 (1) of the Town and Country Planning Act. That being the action initiated, the Writ Petition is not maintainable. However, the petitioner is at liberty to approach the Government under Section 80A of the Act.