SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 8426

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN
Chellaperumal P – Appellant
Versus
The Commissioner – Respondent



##PAGE1##

W.P.(MD) No.3289 of 2026

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED: 05.02.2026

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G. JAYACHANDRAN

AND

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K. RAMAKRISHNAN

W.P.(MD) No.3289 of 2026

and

W.M.P.(MD) Nos.2720 & 2721 of 2026

P.Chellaperumal ... Petitioner

Vs

1. The Commissioner,

Sathur Municipality,

Virudhunagar District.

2. K.Sundarapandian ... Respondents

PRAYER:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records from the office

of the first respondent pertaining to the impugned order in Na.Ka. No.

0180/2023/F1 dated 19.01.2026 and quash the same.

For Petitioner : Mr. K.K.Udayakumar

For R1 : Mr.M.Kannan, Standing Counsel

For R2 : Mr.M.Mahaboob Athiff

1/9

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/02/2026 03:28:17 pm )

##PAGE2##

W.P.(MD) No.3289 of 2026

ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN, J.)

The petitioner/community herein, being aggrieved by the

notice issued by the first respondent dated 19.01.2026, is before this

Court seeking a Writ of Certiorari to quash the said notice. The

impugned notice is issued under Section 128 of the Tamil Nadu Urban

Local Bodies Act, 1998, directing the petitioner/community to remove

the unauthorised structure of an extent of 2.4 m x 9.0 m (21.60 sq.mt)

put up encroaching upon the public street and without planning

permission.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/community

submitted that the structure now sought to be removed is a 100 years old

temple under the control of the petitioner/community. At the instance of

the second respondent, who has made a complaint about the

unauthorised structure and encroachment, the impugned order has been

passed and the petitioner apprehends that if the impugned order is given

effect, the 100 years old Vinayagar Temple is likely to be demolished.

2/9

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/02/2026 03:28:17 pm )

##PAGE3##

W.P.(MD) No.3289 of 2026

3. In the affidavit filed in the writ petition, the petitioner has

narrated the earlier proceedings in respect of the said disputed structure

and the nature of the land upon which the structure is put up.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent

submitted that this case has a long, checkered history and this is the

fourth round of litigation by the petitioner herein to justify the

unauthorised construction of the building encroaching upon the public

street and on the guise of religious sentiment, he is trying to continue the

illegal occupation.

5. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the first

respondent submitted that the petitioner herein, pursuant to the direction

and liberty given by the Division Bench of this Court on 31.07.2023 in

W.P.(MD) No.18408 of 2023, invoking Section 56(3) of the Tamil Nadu

Town and Country Planning Act, 1971, made a representation for

regularization of the construction, which was rejected at all levels.

Ultimately, the revision preferred by them before the Government was

also considered and the proceedings by the Additional Secretary

(Technical) of the Housing Urban Development Department, were

3/9

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/02/2026 03:28:17 pm )

##PAGE4##

W.P.(MD) No.3289 of 2026

passed on 23.01.2024, wherein the revision petition was disposed of

with following observations:

"Considering all the above facts and submissions

made, the Government hereby grant three months time to the

revision petitioner for obtaining Planning Permission from

the competent authority. Since the temple is in existence for

more than 100 years as stated by the officials, obtaining

NOC from District Collector for religious building will not

arise. The revision petitioner is directed to submit the

application and obtain the Planning Permission for the

building within three months time failing which,

LPA/Municipality shall take necessary action as per the

provisions in TNT&CP Act 1971. Till such time there shall be

a stay on the notice dated 05.05.2023 and all other

proceedings of Satt

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top