The amalgamation of residential buildings into commercial use without proper authorization violates the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act.

The writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 26.11.2025 of the 2^nd respondent, whereby the appeal preferred under Section 80-A of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) came to be rejected.

2. According to the petitioner, the firm had purchased the property measuring an extent of 68,389.20 sq.ft. of agricultural land at Survey R.S.No.239/3 and 240/5, Hubbathalai Village, Coonoor Taluk, Nilgiris District, on 29.10.2018. In order to better utilise the property as a farmhouse, the petitioner’s firm had submitted building plan application for approval in the personal names of the partners of the petitioner, seeking for approval to construct two separate residential buildings.

3. The plan was aesthetically prepared in accordance with the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Hill Area Special Building Rules, 1981, r/w Tamil Nadu District Municipalities (Hill Stations) Building Rules, 1993. Necessary approvals of all the Departments were obtained and also NOC was obtained from the Tahsildar on 22.07.2021. Based on which, the 5^th respondent granted building plan approval for the two buildings on 03.06.2020 and 15.12.2021, respectively. As per the approval plan, the petitioner was permitted to put up two separate residential buildings.

4. On completion of construction, completion certificate was issued by the 5^th respondent on 23.08.2022. Since the houses were mostly under lock and key, the petitioner decided to connect the two houses into one unit for better utilisation and use the same commercially for homestay purposes. Necessary licences have been obtained from the Tahsildar, Coonoor on 13.12.2024 for running the homestay. A Certificate of registration for running a bed and breakfast was obtained by the petitioner on 29.12.2022 from the Department of Tourism and based on which, the residential buildings have been assessed for tax by the local body.

5. However in view of the violation, the 5^th respondent issued notice for unauthorised construction on 04.03.2025 and subsequently locked and sealed the premises on 11.03.2025. The petitioner had preferred a statutory revision before the Government under Section

80-A of the Act, which ultimately came to be rejected by the impugned order, which is assailed in the writ petition.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the two buildings have been constructed as per the approval plan and the amalgamation is made only through glass ceilings and temporary fixtures, which cannot be construed as a deviation and unauthorised construction. The petitioner is using the premises commercially as homestay only by obtaining necessary permissions and licences from the competent authorities. The proceedings initiated by the local body and the impugned order rejecting the revision without considering permission granted to the petitioner is therefore illegal.

7. Per contra, the learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents 1 to 6 on instructions, submitted that the entire proceedings in respect of the homestays have been initiated pursuant to the directions issued by a Special Bench of this Court dated 21.11.2025 in W.P.No.15120 of 2019. Moreover, when the petitioner had obtained plan approval for two separate residential farmhouses, had unauthorisedly amalgamated the buildings as single block for commercial purposes, for which appropriate action under the rules has been taken and the revision filed has also rightly been rejected.

8. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record.

9. Admittedly, the petitioner’s firm, had purchased agricultural land and had obtained two separate building plan approvals dated 03.06.2020 and 15.12.2021, for constructing two residential farmhouses. It is no