Court upheld enforcement actions due to unauthorized development, confirming proper procedure was followed by authorities.

(Order of the Court was made by DR.ANITA SUMANTH, J.)

WMP (MD) No.25138 of 2025 filed seeking to file a single Writ Petition is ordered on payment of separate Court fee.

2. The petitioners are aggrieved by a notice issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Municipal Corporation, Madurai, dated

27.10.2025 and seek a certiorarified mandamus, quashing the same. They also seek a consequential direction to the respondents not to lock and seal the property at S.No.204/1, Re.S.No.204/1B, measuring about 3,030 square feet, Patta No.1441, situated at Puthu Vilangudi Village, Union Bank Colony, 5th Street, Madurai Corporation, New Ward - 23, Madurai ('property' / 'property in question')

3. The petitioners are admittedly in receipt of notice dated

18.07.2025 calling for compliance of planning permission in respect of alleged unauthorised development. That notice, which has been produced by the petitioners, has admittedly been received by them. The following deviations were noticed:-

'1.Ground Floor was constructed to an extent of

210 sqm instead of approved area of 119.02 sqm

2.First floor was constructed to an extent of 210 sqm instead of approved area of 119.02 sqm

3.Set backs were not provided as per approved plan

4.Parking space not provided as per approved plan'

4. Despite the same, the petitioners do not appear to have approached the authorities either seeking a clarification, or objecting to the notice. The aforesaid notice was issued pursuant to the inspection carried out on the same day, when the aforesaid alleged violations had been detected.

5. WP(MD)No.17986 of 2025 was filed by one R.Mayilsamy, seeking a mandamus, directing the official respondents to lock and seal the property in question in light of the building violations. The first petitioner was arrayed as R6 in that writ petition, which came to be disposed on 04.08.2025.

6. In that order, the Bench notes that the Corporation had conducted a survey and identified building violations and hence, enforcement action was liable to be initiated. The proceedings had been duly initiated on 18.07.2025 and the first petitioner was given liberty to submit his explanation along with documents within 10 days from that date, ie., 04.08.2025.

7. The reference to Section 135(4) of the Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Act, 1998, at para 3 of the order dated 04.08.2025, appears to an inadvertent error, as that notice produced by the petitioners before us, has been issued under the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 ('Act').

8. Be that as it may, despite the Court granting the petitioners

10 days to file their reply, the petitioners have not bothered to respond. The period of 10 days hence passed, without any response by the petitioners, leading to issuance of notice on 17.09.2025 by the authorities granting further period of 10 days time. To this also, there was no response.

9. It is in the aforesaid circumstances that the impugned order under Section 56 (2) of the Act calling for discontinuance of the use of the land or building, came to be issued. The petitioners have placed in the typeset a representation dated 09.10.2025, without any acknowledgement thereof, which the Madurai Corporation disavows.

10. We agree that the document might have been placed on file to appear as though there had been response to the notices.

11. The primary contention of Mr.V.R.Shanmuganathan, learned counsel for petitioners, is that the petitioners have challenged the impugned lock and seal order by way of revision under Section 80A of the Act Act before the District Collector, along with an application for stay, and hence, no coercive action may be taken till the appeal is disposed of. He would also point out that no f