2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 62699
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
Rajeswari PS – Appellant
Versus
The Additional Secretary (Te – Respondent
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 16.07.2025 CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM AND THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE A.D.MARIA CLETE W.P(MD)No.18991 of 2025 and W.M.P.(MD) No.14547 of 2025 P.S.Rajeswari ... Petitioner Vs
1. The Additional Secretary (Technical), Housing and Urban Development Department, Secretariat, Fort St. George, Chennai.
2. The Commissioner, Tenkasi Municipality, No.85, Anaikarai Street, Tenkasi District - 627 811.
3. The Member Secretary / Assistant Director, Tenkasi Local Planning Authority, Town and Country Planning Department, Tenkasi District - 627 811. ... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, thereby calling for the impugned order on the file of the 1st respondent vide Letter No.7604315/UD-4 (L.Re.2)/2024-3 dated 09.05.2025 and consequent order passed by the 2nd respondent vide Na.Ka.No. 525/2023/F1 dated 11.06.2025 and quash the same as illegal and as devoid of merits and further direct the respondent to provide reasonable further time to rectify the deviations in the building, as per the 1st respondent order vide Letter No.191/UD4 (L.Re.2)/2023-4 dated 09.10.2023 and direct the respondent to regularize the deviation in petitioners building in survey number 700/8A1A of Tenkasi Town and Taluk bearing door No.185 and 184, Kannimaramman Kovil Street, Tenkasi.
For Petitioner : Mr.Raja.Karthikeyan, For Respondent : Mr.J.Ashok (R1 & R3)
Additional Government Pleader : Mr.P.Athimoolapandian (R2)
O R D E R
[Order of the Court was made by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.]
The writ on hand has been instituted challenging the order of the Government passed under Section 80A of the Town and Country Planning Act vide proceedings dated 09.05.2025 and the consequential order passed by the second respondent dated 11.06.2025.
2.Before adverting to the facts relating to the impugned order, on an earlier occasion the petitioner preferred a revision under Section 80A of the Town and Country Planning Act before the Government. The Government elaborately adjudicated the issues and passed a final order vide letter dated 09.10.2023. The said order remains unchallenged and the order dated 09.10.2023, passed under Section 80A of the Town and Country Planning Act became final. Therefore, subsequent revision petition, if any, under Section 80A of the Town and Country Planning Act is not entertainable at all. However, the Government considered and reiterated the earlier order of the year 2023 in the impugned order, dated 09.05.2025. Thus, the consequential order dated 11.06.2025 would not provide an independent cause for institution of writ proceedings in the absence of challenging the elaborate order passed by the Government under section 80A of Town and Country Planning Act.
3.The order, dated 09.10.2023 issued by the Government reveals that the petitioner participated in the process of hearing. Personal hearing was held on 01.08.2023. The petitioner was represented through her counsel before the Government. Officials from DTCP and officials from Tenkasi Municipality were also present before the Government. The petitioner's ground floor plus third floor commercial buildings are unauthorized. The petitioner's site lies in mixed-use zone, wherein, residential use is permissible and commercial activities is not permissible on the road having width of 7.8 meters.
4.The petitioner pleaded before the Government that applications seeking regularization was filed and necessary charges are also paid. Pertinently, regularization of unauthorized buildings cannot be granted by the authorities.
5.In view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Rajendra Kumar Barjatya and another Vs. U.P.Avas Evam Vikas Parishad and others reported in 2024 INSC 990. The relevant paragraphs Nos.20 and 21 runs as follows:
"20. In the ultimate analysis, we are of the opinion that construction(s) put up in violation of