Disposed¶74

A.R.Balakrishnan v. the Commissioner

Madras HC10 Mar 2025WP/1289/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Unauthorised construction demolition mandamus against Greater Chennai Corporation; Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act 1971 Sections 49, 56, 56(1), 57, 85; Stop Work Notice; Lock and Seal notice; De-occupation notice; building plan permission; pendency of civil dispute no defence to enforcement; Adambakkam, Saidapet Taluk, Chennai; WP No. 1289 of 2025; eight-week demolition deadline.

What did the court decide?

Respondents 1 and 2 directed to complete the enforcement procedures as expeditiously as possible and demolish the unauthorised construction put up by the 3rd respondent within eight weeks from receipt of a copy of the order; writ petition disposed of with the above directions, no costs. ¶74

A.R.Balakrishnan Vs the Commissioner — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶74

Issue for consideration

Whether respondents 1 and 2 (Greater Chennai Corporation officials) are to be directed to remove the illegal/unauthorised construction done by the 3rd respondent on the 0.22 cents house site in S.No.243/5, Adambakkam Village. +1 more

¶17

Court's answer

Any building requires building plan permission from the competent authority; in the absence of such building plan approval, the competent authority is empowered to initiate enforcement action and demolish the unauthorised construction.

¶62

Ratio / Principle

During the pendency of a civil dispute or otherwise, unauthorised construction cannot be allowed; mere pendency of a civil dispute is not a ground to escape from the clutches of an illegal act, and it must be dealt with appropriately in the manner contemplated.

¶64

Key takeaways

Since public authorities have already initiated enforcement action, it is to be continued by following further procedure, and respondents 1 and 2 are directed to complete the procedures as expeditiously as possible and demolish the unauthorised construction put up by the 3rd respondent.ratio¶71
The demolition exercise directed upon respondents 1 and 2 is to be completed within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.ratio¶73

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (bench of S.M. Subramaniam and K. Rajasekar JJ.; order made by S.M. Subramaniam J.) disposed of a writ petition seeking removal of an unauthorised construction (ground and first floors measuring 1200 sq. ft., erected without any building approval or planning permission) put up by the third respondent on a 0.22 cents house site in S.No.243/5, Adambakkam Village, Chennai. The Greater Chennai Corporation had already issued a Stop Work Notice and Calling for Approval Plan (31.07.2023), a Lock and Seal notice (20.11.2023) and a De-occupation notice (25.04.2024) under Sections 49, 56, 57 and 85 of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971. Holding that mere pendency of a civil dispute between the parties is no ground to escape the clutches of an illegal act, and that in the absence of building plan approval the competent authority is empowered to enforce and demolish, the Court directed respondents 1 and 2 to complete the enforcement procedures and demolish the unauthorised construction within eight weeks. Writ petition disposed of; no costs.

¶1

WP No. 1289 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 10-03-2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE S. M. SUBRAMANIAM AND

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR

¶7

WP No. 1289 of 2025

A.R.Balakrishnan

Petitioner(s)

1.The Commissioner Greater Chennai Corporation, Chennai-600 003.

¶12

2.The Executive Engineer / Z-12, Greater Chennai Corporation, Alandur.

¶13

3.R.V.Arul

¶14

Respondent(s)

¶15

WP No. 1289 of 2025

¶16

PRAYER

¶17

Directing the respondents 1 and 2 in removing the illegal construction done by the 3rd respondent in the land to an extent of 0.22 cents, house site, comprised in S.No.243/5, in Adambakkam Village, Saidapet Taluk, is situated in Ward-f, Block 13, Surender Nagar, 6th Street, Adambakkam, Chennai-600 088.

¶18

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶19

WP No. 1289 of 2025

¶20

WP No. 1289 of 2025

¶21

For Petitioner(s): Mr.P.Raja

¶22

For Respondent(s): Ms.V.Pavithra For M/s.S.Vanitha Joice Rani For R1 and R2 Mr.R.Thiagarajan For Ms.G.Sumitra For R3

¶23

ORDER

¶24

(Order of the Court was made by S.M.Subramaniam J.)

¶25

The writ of mandamus has been instituted to direct the respondents 1 and

¶26

2 to remove the unauthorised construction carried out by the 3rd respondent on a

¶27

0.22 cents house site in S.No.243/5, Adambakkam Village, Saidapet Taluk,

¶28

located at Ward-F, Block 13, Surender Nagar, 6th Street, Adambakkam, Chennai

¶29

600 088.

¶30

A civil dispute between the writ petitioner and the 3rd respondent is

¶31

pending before the Competent Civil Court of Law. The writ petition, in

¶32

paragraph 17 of the affidavit, states that the present writ petition is only

¶33

confined to the complaint made by the writ petition to the Corporation on

¶34

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶35

WP No. 1289 of 2025

¶36

27.06.2023, regarding the unauthorised construction put up by the 3rd

¶37

respondent in the subject property.

¶38

Regarding the civil dispute, it is for the parties to resolve the same in

¶39

the manner known to law. As far as the unauthorised constructions are

¶40

concerned, the Chennai Corporation has initiated action.

¶41

In the context of the pleading between the parties, this Court directed

¶42

the Executive Engineer to file a status report. The Status report filed by the

¶43

Executive Engineer, Greater Chennai Corporation, reveals the following facts:

¶44

“5. I respectfully submit that, based on the

¶45

above complaint of the writ petitioner the Assistant Executive Engineer, Greater Chennai Corporation

¶46

has inspected the said building and issued a Stop Work Notice and Calling for Approval plan under 56(1) and 57 read with section 85 of Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 (Tamil Nadu Act, 35 of 1972 as amended by Act 61 of 2008) to the 3rd respondent on 31.07.2023.

¶47

6. I respectfully submit that on 23.09.2023 the

¶48

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶49

WP No. 1289 of 2025

¶50

Assistant Engineer. Greater Chennai Corporation has inspected the said subject building and found that the 3rd respondent has constructed a building measuring 1200 Square Feet of ground floor and first floor without obtaining any building approval from the Greater Chennai Corporation.

¶51

7. I respectfully submit that, the 3rd respondent didn't produce valid documents and not obtained any planning permission. Hence the Greater Chennai Corporation issued Lock and Seal notice under section 57 read with section 85 of Town and Country Planning Act 1971 as amended by Act 61 of 2008 requiring Locking and Sealing and Demolition of the construction put up unauthorized without planning permission required under section 49 of the said Act vide 163/01/2023 dated 20.11.2023 to the 3rd respondent herein.

¶52

8. I respectfully submit that, to implement the enforcement action against the 3rd respondent the Greater Chennai Corporation issued De-occupation notice and to lock and seal the premises under Section 56 and Sub Section 2(A) & 57 read with Section 85 of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act 1971

¶53

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶54

WP No. 1289 of 2025

¶55

on 25.04.2024.

¶56

9. I respectfully submit that the 3rd respondent

¶57

has replied to the De-occupation notice dated 25.04.2024 through his advocate on 23.05.2024, stating that there are suits and appeals are pending in courts regarding the subject property and 3rd respondent has also obtained a decree in his favor and thus to recall the De-occupation notice.

¶58

10. I respectfully submit that as per the inspection made by the Assistant Engineer, Greater Chennai Corporation on 19.02.2025, the 3rd respondent has not undergone any construction after the issuance of Stop Work Notice / Calling for approval plan dated 31.07.2023 and there is no any further construction noticed in the subject building. Further, the 3ra respondent on 21.02.2025 made a representation requesting some time to complete the proceedings before the Hon'ble court and to apply for the required plan and to obtain such authorization that is needed and abide by laws.”

¶59

During the pendency of the civil dispute or otherwise the unauthorised

¶60

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶61

WP No. 1289 of 2025

¶62

construction cannot be allowed. Any building requires a building plan permission from the competent authority. In the absence of any such building plan approval, the competent authority is empowered to initiate enforcement action and demolish the unauthorised construction.

¶63

In the present case, a notice to lock and seal to the premises under

¶64

Section 56 and Sub Section 2(A) and 57 read with Section 85 of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 was issued on 25.04.2024. The 3rd respondent has replied through his advocate on 23.05.2024, stating that civil litigation between the writ petitioner and 3rd respondent is pending. However, such a reply by the 3rd respondent is sufficient to protect the unauthorised construction. Mere pendency of a civil dispute will not be a ground to escape from the clutches of an illegal act. It is to be dealt with appropriately in the manner contemplated.

¶65

In the present case, public authorities have already initiated action and

¶66

therefore, it is to be continued by following further procedures and unauthorised

¶67

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶68

WP No. 1289 of 2025

¶69

constructions are to be demolished. In view of the above facts and

¶70

circumstances, the respondent 1 and 2 are directed to complete the procedures

¶71

as expeditiously as possible and demolish the unauthorised construction put up

¶72

by the 3rd respondent. The said exercise is directed to be completed within a

¶73

period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶74

With the above directions, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. No

¶75

costs.

¶76

(S.M.SUBRAMANIAM J.)(K.RAJASEKAR J.)

¶77

10-03-2025

¶78

Jeni

¶79

Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes Neutral Citation:Yes/No

¶80

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶81

WP No. 1289 of 2025

¶82

WP No. 1289 of 2025

¶83

¶84

1.The Commissioner Greater Chennai Corporation, Chennai600 003.

¶85

2.The Executive Engineer / Z-12, Greater Chennai Corporation, Alandur.

¶86

3.R.V.Arul S/o.R.V.Rajan, No.1, Income Tax Colony, Adambakkam, Chennai-600 088.

¶87

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶88

WP No. 1289 of 2025

¶89

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM J.

¶90

AND K.RAJASEKAR J.

¶91

Jeni

¶92

WP No. 1289 of 2025

¶93

10-03-2025

¶94

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Prior proceeding
A civil dispute between the writ petitioner and the 3rd respondent is pending before the Competent Civil Court of Law.¶30
Prior proceeding
Writ petitioner lodged a complaint with the Greater Chennai Corporation on 27.06.2023 regarding the unauthorised construction put up by the 3rd respondent in the subject property.¶36
Prior proceeding
On the writ petitioner's complaint, the Assistant Executive Engineer inspected the building and issued a Stop Work Notice and Calling for Approval Plan under sections 56(1) and 57 read with section 85 of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 to the 3rd respondent on 31.07.2023.¶46
Prior proceeding
Inspection by the Assistant Engineer on 23.09.2023 found the 3rd respondent had constructed a building measuring 1200 square feet of ground floor and first floor without obtaining any building approval from the Greater Chennai Corporation.¶50
Prior proceeding
The Greater Chennai Corporation issued a Lock and Seal notice under section 57 read with section 85 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 (requiring locking, sealing and demolition; planning permission required under section 49) vide 163/01/2023 dated 20.11.2023 to the 3rd respondent.¶51
Prior proceeding
To implement enforcement action, the Greater Chennai Corporation issued a De-occupation notice to lock and seal the premises under Section 56, Sub Section 2(A) and 57 read with Section 85 of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act 1971 on 25.04.2024.¶52
Prior proceeding
The 3rd respondent replied to the De-occupation notice dated 25.04.2024 through his advocate on 23.05.2024, stating that suits and appeals were pending regarding the subject property and that he had obtained a decree in his favour, and sought recall of the notice.¶57
Prior proceeding
As per inspection by the Assistant Engineer on 19.02.2025, the 3rd respondent carried out no construction after the Stop Work Notice / Calling for Approval Plan dated 31.07.2023; on 21.02.2025 he represented requesting time to complete proceedings before the Hon'ble court and to apply for the required plan.¶58

A.R.Balakrishnan v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.R.Balakrishnan v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Union Of India, Vs Ex Hav Amal Singh David Sp

Union of India Vs the Registrar

The Union of India Vs The Registrar

John Edison Vs Union of India

The Chief Engineer Vs C Elumalai

R.Nagarajan Vs the Commissioner