Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 63217
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
J. Nisha Banu, M. Jothiraman, JJ
PUNITHA – Appellant
Versus
Government Of Tamil Nadu – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 18013 of 2025 | WMP No.20207 of 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. G.V. Sridharan
For the Respondents: Mr. M. Rajendran, Agp
Mr. E.C. Ramesh
The court upheld regulatory compliance for property construction, asserting unauthorized buildings cannot escape legal scrutiny.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Writ petition challenging the impugned notice issued concerning unauthorized construction - The petitioner claimed ownership of property and contended the notice was based on a false complaint from a neighbor, seeking to quash the notice and prevent coercive action against her. (Paras 1, 4, 7)
(B) Legal Principle - The court examined prior orders restricting coercive steps until proper planning permissions were obtained, establishing the importance of compliance with legal directives in property construction. (Paras 5, 6)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner owns property where a building was allegedly constructed unauthorisedly, facing action due to complaints.
Findings of Court:
The petition was dismissed as no merit was found in interfering with the order requiring planning permission.
Issues: Whether the notice was illegal and whether the building was indeed authorized.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reiterated that unauthorized constructions cannot be condoned and the law must be followed for permits.
Result: Writ petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. court emphasizes the need for compliance with local building laws and prior court orders. (Para 1 , 3) |
| 2. petitioner claims ownership over property facing claims of unauthorized construction. (Para 2 , 4 , 6) |
| 3. court finds no merit in petitioner's challenge to the notice and upholds authorities' rights. (Para 7) |
| 4. final ruling dismissing the writ petition is made. (Para 8) |
(Order of the Court was made by J.Nisha Banu J.)
This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned notice issued by the 1st respondent in Letter No. 5289915 / UD VI (2)/ 2023- 2, dated 18.03.2024 as the same is illegal, unconstitutional and unreasonable and consequently direct the 2nd and 3rd respondents restrained from taking any coercive steps against the petitioner forthwith.
2. The case of the petitioner is that she is the absolute owner of the property bearing door No.35/61B, Ammai Ammal Street, Puliyanthope, Perambur Village, Chennai measuring to an extent of 1000 sq.ft. In a portion of the said property, a building with ground + first floor was constructed by her father and she is residing there with her family members. According to the petitioner, her neighbour by name A.Nehruraj gave a false complaint before the respondents 2 and 3 alleging that the petitioner has carried out an unauthorised construction in the said property. Subsequently, the first respondent issued the impugned notice and following the same, the respondents 2 and 3 are taking steps to lock and seal the property. Hence this writ petition.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the first respondent and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 2nd and 3rd respondent.
4. A perusal of the records shows that, earlier the petitioner filed a writ petition in W.P.No.33189 of 2023 before this court to forbear the 2nd and 3rd respondents from interfering with the building put up by her in the subject property by way of locking and sealing, pending disposal of the Special revision petition filed by the her under Section 80 (a) & 80(a)(3) of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act before the first respondent.
5. The above said writ petition was disposed of by an order dated
27.11.2023, directing the first respondent to dispose of the revision petition filed by the petitioner dated 26.07.2023, after giving opportunity to the petitioner, within eight weeks from the date of receipt of the order. Till such time, the respondents 2 and 3 were restrained from taking any coercive steps against the petitioner.
6. Pursuant to the above said order passed by this court, the revision petition filed by the petitioner was considered by the first respondent and after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the impugned order has been passed, granting 3 months time to the petitioner to obtain necessary planning permission for the building, as per the Tamil Nadu combined Development and Building Rules 2019, after rectifying the defects, if any, in the said building. The petitioner was also informed that on expiry of the said period of 3 months time, the authorities concerned shall proceed with further action against the building, if the petitioner fails to comply the above direction. This impugned order came to be passed on 20.03.2024.
7. The petitioner, without taking any steps to get appropriate planning permission for the building, in order to comply with the above said direction, after a period of nearly 16 months, has filed the present writ petition to quash the impugned order. Admittedly, the building has been constructed unauthorisedly. Therefore, we find no reason to interfere with the impugned order and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed as it has no merits.
8. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
