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) 16568

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, CJ, MR R. SURESH KUMAR, J
Devi Furniture Rep by its Proprietor Mr.P.Saravanan – Appellant
Versus
Government Of Tamil Nadu Rep by its Additional Secretary (Technical) – Respondent
WP No. 6894 of 2026 | WMP Nos. 7509 & 7507 OF 2026



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. S.Sadasharam
For the Respondents:Mr. M. Habeeb Rahman, Government Advocate G. A, Ms. P. Veena Suresh, Sc

Court clarifies the procedural remedies available under the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act in relation to unauthorized construction.

Headnote:This writ petition challenges an order under Section 80-A of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971. The petitioner constructed a building without permission, and the authority directed demolition. Despite a possible remedy under Section 56(3), the petitioner sought revision instead. The court granted liberty to seek remedy under Section 56(3) while making clear the consequences of inaction. The writ petition is disposed of on these terms with no order as to costs.

Table of Content
1. unauthorized construction and the implications of taking remedies. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. court's directive on the appropriate procedural recourse. (Para 4)
3. final order and implications of the court's ruling. (Para 5 , 6)

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the order passed by the revisional authority / Government, in exercise of powers under Section 80-A of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is illegal, as it takes away the petitioner's right to take appropriate measures as envisaged under Section 56 (3) of the Act.

3. We find that it is an admitted position on record that the petitioner has constructed the building without any permission whatsoever. In such situation, it was within the power of the authority to take necessary steps to issue notice and require the petitioner to demolish the illegal construction.

3. Though the petitioner had a remedy as provided under Section

56(3) of the Act, the petitioner chose to challenge the demolition notice by filing a revision petition under Section 80-A of the Act.

4. In the absence of the petitioner himself having taken recourse to the remedy available under Section 56 (3) of the Act, the revisional authority did not commit any illegality because, in the absence of any such option taken by the petitioner under (3), the only course open is to proceed towards demolition.

5. However, taking into consideration that the petitioner was not well advised and instead of taking steps as envisaged under Section 56 (3), he filed a revision petition, we dispose of this writ petition giving the petitioner liberty to take remedy under (3) by making an application under Section 49 within a period of thirty days from today. If such an application is filed, the same shall be decided on its own merits without being influenced by the order passed under Section 80-A . However, in the event the petitioner does not take the remedy for which liberty is now granted by us, the order of the revisional authority shall become effective and operative and the petitioner will have to face the consequences.

6. The writ petition is disposed of on the above terms. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

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