IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 12.12.2025 CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN W.P.No.10498 of 2024 and W.M.P.Nos.11501 and 11502 of 2024 Diamond City Residents Welfare Sangam Regn .No.SRG/Coimbatore-South/4/24, Rep. by its President, G.Senthil Vadivel, S/o.Gopalsamy, No.106, 107, Diamond City, New Railway Bridge, Vadugapalayam, Pollachi 642 001, Coimbatore District Petitioner Vs

1.The Member Secretary/

Joint Director (I/c)

Coimbatore District Town and Country Planning Office, No.50, Ground and First Floor, FCI Road, Gandhimaa Nagar, Ganapathy, Coimbatore 641 004

2.The Assistant Director Coimbatore District Town and Country Planning Office, No.50, Ground and First Floor, FCI Road, Gandhimaa Nagar, Ganapathy, Coimbatore 641 004

3.The Commissioner Pollachi Municipality, Pollachi, Pollachi Taluk, Coimbatore District

4.C.Shanthakumar No.67, PNG Nagar, Mahalingapuram Post, Pollachi 642 002 Coimbatore District

5.S.Jothimani No.67, PNG Nagar, Mahalingapuram Post, Pollachi 642 002 Coimbatore District Respondents PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ of certiorari calling for the entire records relating to the impugned order passed by the 2^nd respondent in his proceedings SWP/LP/R(C) No.127/2023 and SWP/BP/DTCP/R(C) No.25/2023 dated NIL and consequential order issued by the 3^rd respondent for building plan approval in his proceedings No.076/BL/2023/00103 dated 26.06.2023 and quash the same.

For Petitioner: Mr.C.Prakasam For Respondent(s):Mr.K.Karthik Jagannath Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2 Mr.B.Anand Standing Counsel for respondent No.3 Mr.S.Mukunth Senior Counsel for Ms.S.Akila for respondent Nos.4 and 5 ORDER (Order of the Court was made by the Hon'ble Chief Justice)

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The correctness and validity of the action of the respondent authorities in granting building approval and permitting construction of Kalyanamandapam in the area earmarked as shop site is assailed by the petitioner alleging that the same is impermissible under the law.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to Rule 47 of the Tamil Nadu Combined Development and Building Rules, 2019 (the Rules) and various directions/circulars.

4. Learned State counsel would submit that Rule 17 of the Rules permits conversion of use of residential area for other non-residential purposes.

5. It is borne out from records that the place where the Kalyanamandapam has been constructed was earlier allocated as shop site. It appears that shops were not constructed and, thereafter, an application was made for construction of Kalyanamandapam. The building approval was granted and, thereafter, the construction has started.

6. During the course of hearing, we noted that as per Rule 17 of the Rules, construction of marriage hall would be permissible, if the land falls under mixed residential zone, whereas such construction is impermissible in a primary residential area.

Learned State counsel, thereafter, placed on record Government Order dated 24.7.1974.

Though this Government Order states regarding primary residential area and mixed residential area, as also the activities which could be carried out in respect of areas, we do not find that the petitioner has made any averment in the writ petition or has placed any document on record to show that the shop sites, where Kalyanamandapam has been constructed, is classified as primary residential area. The reviewed master plan, which has been placed on record, does not indicate that the place where Kalyanamandapam has been constructed is part of primary residential zone.

7. It was for the petitioner to prove that the site is part of primary residential zone. Whether or not the site of the plot is primary residential zone or mixed residential zone has not been established by the petitioner.

8. The affidavit which has been filed by the State also does no