IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 11.11.2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN U.Ragothaman .... Petitioner Vs

1.The District Collector Villupuram District Villupuram.

2.The Commissioner Villupuram Municipal Office Villupuram – 605 401.

3.The Block Development Officer Koliyanur, Villupuram District.

4.P.Selvakumar .... Respondents PRAYER :

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the 2nd respondent to take action to remove the surrounding wall and alter the building northern side portion, put up by the 4th respondent, Thiru.P.Selvakumar, son of Palanisamy, 89/205, Krishna Square, Thanthai Periyar Nagar, Salamedu, Kandamanadi, Ward No.41, Villupuram as per conditions sent by the 2nd respondent, the Commissioner, Villupuram Office, Villupuram and grant such other relief. For Petitioner : Mr.U.Ragothaman (Party-in-Person)

For Respondents : Mr.M.Shajahan Special Government Pleader for R1 Dr.T.Seenivasan Special Government Pleader for R2 & R3 R4 - Served

ORDER

Heard Mr.U.Ragothaman, Party-in-Person and Mr.M.Shajahan, Special Government Pleader for the first respondent and Dr.T.Seenivasan for respondents 2 and 3.

2. The party-in-person was directed to take private notice on the fourth respondent. Though the party-in-person had taken such notice and the postal authorities attempted to serve the notice on several occasions to the respondent and the same was refused. Hence, the service is treated as sufficient.

3. The grievance of the petitioner is that a plot situated on the western side of his property, bearing Door No.205, Krishna Square, Thanthai Periyar Nagar, Salaimedu, Villupuram, has been constructed in deviation from the approved plan. He alleged that, neither there is setback space nor a staircase between the two properties, nor has the building been constructed in terms of the approved plan. He approached the authorities under the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, when Salaimedu was still governed by the Koliayanur Panchayat Union, and despite the orders of the authorities, no action was initiated.

4. On account of expansion of Villupuram Municipality, Salaimedu is now governed by the said Municipal authority. Though he knocked on the doors of the Municipality, as no action was forthcoming, despite assurances. Hence, he is before this Court by way of the present writ petition.

5. Taking note of the allegations in the petition, by an order dated

27.10.2025, I called upon the second respondent to inspect the building situated in the aforesaid address and I adjourned the matter to today.

6. When I took up the matter, Dr.T.Seenivasan states that the property was inspected, and it was found that there are deviations, including the setback violations in the property. He further states that the Municipal authorities had attempted to serve notice on the fourth respondent, but, he refused to receive the same. Therefore, it was affixed on his premises.

7. The instructions also report that 30 days’ time, as required under Sections 56 and 57 of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971, has been granted to the fourth respondent to make the necessary changes in the building and bring it in accordance with the sanctioned plan. In case, it is not done so, the Municipality will take further action in accordance with law.

8. The instructions and notices given by the Commissioner of Villupuram is scanned and extracted hereunder:

9. The notice which has been issued in accordance with law, shall be proceeded with further, in case, the building is not brought in accordance with the sanctioned plan. The respondent should not make the party-in-person, who is a senior citizen to come over to this Court all over again, either by way of a fresh writ petition or a contempt petition.

10. The Municipality shall discharge its duty as mandated under the Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Act and the Rules made thereunder. In case, the building is not brought back to the or