BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 04.08.2025 CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM AND THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE A.D.MARIA CLETE W.P.(MD)No.21278 of 2025 and W.M.P.(MD)Nos.16443 & 16445 of 2025 P.Mohan ... Petitioner -Vs-

1.The Assistant Director of Town Panchayats, Dindigul Zone, Collectorate, Dindigul.

2.The Deputy Director of Town and Country Planning, O/o. The District Town and Country Planning, Vivekanandha Nagar, Dindigul-624 001.

3.The Executive Officer, Palayam Town Panchayat, Guziliamparai and Taluk, Dindigul District. ... Respondents PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the 3^rd respondent vide his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.187/2025/A2, dated

28.05.2025 and quash the same as illegal.

For Petitioner : Mr.T.Aswin Raja Simman For R1 & R2 : Mr.S.P.Maharajan, Special Government Pleader For R3 : Mr.M.Sarangan, Additional Government Pleader

ORDER

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

Litigious maintenance of unauthorized construction or continuous of encroachment of public property at no circumstances be encouraged by the High Court. Legal brains attempting to thwart the legal proceedings initiated under law must be cautiously dealt with by the High Court. Multiple litigations have been instituted to thwart the enforcement action. This practice adopted by the litigants must be dealt with by iron hands in the interest of public. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India also dealt with the unauthorized constructions, ill consequences and issued directives in rem in the case of Rajendra Kumar Barjatya and another Vs. U.P.Avasevam Vikas Parishad and others reported in 2024 INSC 990. In continuation of the said judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court again reiterated the principles in the case of Kaniz Ahmed Vs. Sabbudin and others reported in 2025 INC 610.

2.Keeping in mind the directives issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, let us now consider the scope of the rules in the context of the order impugned passed in the Writ Petition vide proceedings dated 28.05.2025. 3.Admittedly, the writ petitioner constructed building without obtaining building plan permission under the provisions of the Act. After completion of the construction, he made an application, seeking building plan permission. The authorities competent have stated that such application, seeking post building plan approval is not maintainable. The authorities competent further stated that they have no jurisdiction to grant post building plan approval and therefore, passed the impugned order, stating that the petitioner may approach the Head of the Department, namely, Commissioner.

4.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the authorities competent are forcing the petitioner to run pillar to post without passing any final orders on the application submitted by him, seeking post building plan approval. Having no other remedy, the present Writ Petition came to be instituted. He relied on Section 135(3) of the Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Act, 1998 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Local Bodies Act').

5.Section 135(3) of the Local Bodies Act states that 'the Commissioner may, after scrutiny of such application in the prescribed form received together with any plan, and after satisfying himself that the construction work is in accordance with the rules, he may grant the permission after collecting necessary fee and the penalty prescribed'.

6.First of all, the petitioner is not entitled to contend that Section 135 of the Local Bodies Act is to be applicable in his case. The petitioner, on an earlier occasion, has given a written statement, admitting the fact that the building was constructed without obtaining building plan approval and himself will demolish the building and thereafter, submitted an application, seeking plan approval. Therefore, now, he cannot turn around and contend that the