Authorities must specify deviations and direct rectification before rejecting building regularisation applications under Section 135 TNULB Act.

2. The Assistant Commissioner, Zone-V, Madurai West, Madurai Corporation, Thirupparankundram, Madurai-625 005. ... Respondents PRAYER :- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the impugned order issued by the 2^nd respondent in Ma5E1/000492/2026 dated 25.02.2026 and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the respondents to regularise the building of the petitioners at Door Nos.293, 293A, 293B, 293C in Survey Nos.150, 153, 364, 368 situated at Harivipatti, Madurai District.

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Kannan For Respondents : Mr.S.Vinayak, Standing Counsel

ORDER

(Judgment of the Court was made by N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.)

The prayer in this writ petition is to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the impugned order issued by the 2^nd respondent in Ma5E1/000492/2026 dated 25.02.2026 and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the respondents to regularise the building of the petitioners at Door Nos.293, 293A, 293B, 293C in Survey Nos.150, 153, 364, 368 situated at Harivipatti, Madurai District.

WMP(MD)No.7766 of 2026 filed to permit the petitioners to file a single writ petition is ordered.

2. The unauthorised constructions put up by the petitioners without approval were sought to be removed by way of writ petition filed by the brother of the petitioners. This Court has directed the Corporation to remove the unauthorised constructions, if any, by the petitioners. Consequent to the said order, the Corporation issued a lock and seal notice which was challenged by the petitioners in W.P(MD)No.3283 of 2026, contending that pending their regularization application dated 28.10.2025, the Corporation has issued the lock and seal notice. This Court by order dated 05.02.2026, has issued the following directions:

''4. Taking into consideration that admittedly, the constructions have been put up prior to getting approval of the Authorities and only after taking coercive action, the writ petitioners have made application for regularization for the constructions, we are of the view that an order of lock and seal has to be enforced. At the same time, the application for regularization made by the petitioner on 28.10.2025 is to be considered and scrutinized in accordance with law within a period of three (3) weeks. If there is any defect to be rectified in the application, the concerned Authority should pass orders in the representation dated 31.01.2025 made by the petitioners herein within seven (7) days from today.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would state that the premises have been locked and sealed by the respondents yesterday (04.02.2026) at 11'o clock even without permitting the petitioners to remove the essentials from the house.

6. In view of the same, the respondents are directed to remove the lock and seal to enable the petitioners herein to remove the essentials from the building and after removing the essentials, the respondents are directed to lock and seal the premises 48 hours after de-sealing.''

3. Pursuant to the abovesaid order, the 2ndrespondent by impugned order dated 25.02.2026, rejected the regularization application of the petitioners stating that there is no provision under the Act for regularising the unauthorised constructions made by the petitioners. It is relevant to note that in W.P(MD)No.3283 of 2026, this Court has specifically directed that if there is any defect to be rectified in the application, the concerned authority should pass orders in the representation dated 31.01.2025 made by the petitioners within seven days from t