BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 18.02.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN AND THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE R.KALAIMATHI W.P(MD)No.16609 of 2023 and W.M.P(MD)Nos.13890 & 13891 of 2023 D.John Alfred ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Housing and Urban Development Department, Secretariat, Chennai – 9.

2.The Additional Secretary (Technical), Housing and Urban Development Department, Secretariat, Chennai – 9.

3.The Director, Department of Town and Country Planning, Annasalai, Chennai.

4.The Nagercoil Local Planning Authority, Rep. by its Member Secretary (District Collector), Collectorate, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District.

5.The Nagercoil Corporation, Rep. by its Commissioner, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District. ... Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records relating to the impugned proceedings vide letter No. 3926/UD4 (L.Re-2)/2020-2, dated 25.01.2023 and vide letter No.171/ UD4 (L.Re-2)/ 2020-1, dated 25.05.2023 of the second respondent herein and quash the same.

For Petitioner : Mr.Isaac Mohanlal Senior Counsel for Mr.VR.Shanmuganathan For Respondents : Mr.A.Baskar Additional Government Pleader for R.1 to R.4 Mr.F.Deepak Standing Counsel for R.5

JUDGMENT

(Judgment of the Court was made by G.R.Swaminathan J.)

Heard both sides.

2.The petitioner had admittedly put up an unauthorised construction. Hence, the Local Planning Authority passed lock and seal order against the said building on 11.03.2020. Challenging the same, the petitioner filed an appeal under Section 80(A) before the Government. The said appeal was dismissed vide order dated 25.01.2023. Seeking reconsideration of the said order dated 25.01.2023, the petitioner filed review application. That was also dismissed on 25.05.2023. Challenging these two rejection orders, this writ petition came to be filed.

3.The building in question at present comprises 9 floors. The petitioner had applied to the local body way back in the year 1996 for putting up a building comprising basement and the ground floor. After completing the construction, the petitioner moved the local body for putting up one more floor. That was also permitted. Even though, the petitioner had obtained permission only for putting up basement, ground floor and first floor, he went beyond and put up few more floors. This came under the adverse notice of the local body, which instituted O.S.No. 12 of 2002 on the file of Additional District Munsif Court, Nagercoil seeking mandatory injunction for removal of the entire building. According to the local body, the building had been constructed on a water body. The petitioner filed a counter suit in O.S.No.54 of 2002 before the very same Court seeking suitable reliefs against the local body, including a declaratory relief that the construction put up by him was lawful. Both the suits were tried together. The suit filed by the local body was dismissed while the suit filed by the petitioner was decreed on

11.04.2008.

4.The decree passed by the trial Court was put to challenge by the local body by filing first appeal. Since the first appeal was not filed within time, the first appellate Court dismissed the appeal at the condone delay stage itself on 03.03.2010. Questioning the same, the local body filed CRP(MD)SR No.16949 & 16955 of 2014. The said CRPs were also dismissed at the condone delay stage on 12.07.2018. Thus, the decree passed in favour of the petitioner had attained finality.

5.Emboldened by the fact that the additional constructions put up by him had secured the imprimatur of the civil Court, the petitioner went on to put up further floors. Ultimately, the building became a nine-

storied structure. Since this furnished a new cause of action, the local body rightly intervened in the matter and that is how the case is before us.

6.During the intervening period, the revised plan was also