IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 20.02.2026 CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN W.P.No.5965 of 2026 P.Gunasekaran S/o. Padavettan Residing at No.32/11 Kamarajar Nagar

1st Cross Street, Srinivasa Nagar Padi, Chennai 600 050.

Petitioner(s)

Vs

1. The Assistant Engineer Greater Chennai Corporation Zone VII, Ambattur Chennai 53.

2. The Secretary Urban Housing and Development Department Government of Tamil Nadu Fort St.George, Secretariat Building Chennai 09.

Respondent(s)

Prayer : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of Mandamus directing the 1^st respondent to maintain status quo and forbear from taking any coercive action including lock, seal or demolition in respect of the petitioner’s property bearing Door No.32/11 Kamarajar Nagar, Padi, Chennai 600 050 till the petitioner obtains building planning permission, pursuant to the appellate authority’s order.

For Petitioner(s): Mr.K.Gajendiran And Mr.M.Nihal Ahemmed For Respondent(s): Mr. E.C.Ramesh Standing Counsel for R1 Mr. E.Vijay Anand Addl. Govt. Pleader for R2 ORDER (Order of the Court was made by the Hon'ble Chief Justice)

Finding that construction has been raised without any approval, lock and seal proceedings were drawn. Petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court which was dismissed with liberty to avail revisional remedy. Petitioner, thereafter, filed a revision under Section 80A of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1971, which was dismissed vide order dated 28.10.2025 with a direction that petitioner shall obtain demolition approval from Greater Chennai Corporation. Greater Chennai Corporation was directed to approve the demolition plan within ten days of the application and thereafter, petitioner was required to demolish unauthorised construction within a period of three months. Further direction was given to Greater Chennai Corporation to pursue further enforcement action on the subject building as per the provisions of the Act if revision petitioner failed to comply with the direction.

2. It is the case of petitioner that in compliance with the direction of the revisional authority, he has submitted an application for building planning permission before the respondent Corporation, along with all documents and fees, which is still under consideration. However, without deciding the application for grant of permission, petitioner is under constant threat of coercive action including lock, seal and demolition, based on earlier notices. Prayer, therefore, has been made to direct respondent Corporation to maintain status quo until planning permission process is completed.

3. The order passed by the revisional authority on 28.10.2025 did not give liberty to petitioner to seek post facto approval of illegal construction. The revisional authority directed petitioner to submit demolition approval plan.

4. The application, which is placed on record, was submitted prior to the order passed by the authority.

5. There is nothing on record to show that petitioner has submitted any demolition plan.

6. It is apparent that without having taken any steps, as directed by the revisional authority, petitioner seeks to somehow continue with the illegal construction. Therefore, no relief can be granted.

7. Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

(MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, CJ) (G.ARUL MURUGAN,J)

20.02.2026 Index : Yes/No Neutral Citation : Yes/No kpl To

1. The Assistant Engineer Greater Chennai Corporation Zone VII, Ambattur Chennai 53.

2. The Secretary Urban Housing and Development Department Government of Tamil Nadu Fort St.George, Secretariat Building Chennai 09.

THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND G.ARUL MURUGAN,J.

(kpl)

20.02.2026