Dismissed¶43

Nagalakshmi v. the Commissioner

Madras HC12 Feb 2025WP/17699/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: writ petition; Article 226; certiorarified mandamus; unauthorised construction; building plan permission; demolition notice; alternate remedy exhaustion; judicial review; roving inquiry; Vaniyambadi Municipality; Town and Country Planning; Madras High Court 2025; W.P.Nos.17699 & 17702 of 2024; writ petitions dismissed; miscellaneous petitions closed.

What did the court decide?

None to the petitioners; the respondents/Municipal Authorities are left at liberty to proceed with further actions in pursuance of the impugned notices, including demolition of unauthorised buildings following due process. ¶43

Nagalakshmi Vs the Commissioner — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶43

Issue for consideration

Maintainability: whether the writ petitioners may obtain relief under Article 226 against notices issued for unauthorised construction when an alternate statutory remedy is available under the Act. +1 more

¶37

Court's answer

An alternate statutory remedy is contemplated under the Act and must be exhausted by the aggrieved petitioners; factual determinations and verification of documents are to be done only by the competent and Appellate/Regional Authorities, and the High Court cannot conduct a roving inquiry into illegalities in the matter of construction of buildings — effective judicial review requires adjudication and recording of facts by those authorities.

¶37

Ratio / Principle

The actions initiated by the Municipal Authorities and the issuance of the impugned notices are well within their powers conferred under the Statutes and Rules in force and there is no infirmity; consequently the respondents/Municipal Authorities are at liberty to proceed with all further actions in pursuance of the impugned notices, and any unauthorised buildings identified are to be demolished by following the due process.

¶38

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (Division Bench: S.M.Subramaniam and K.Rajasekar; order of the Court made by S.M.Subramaniam, J.), decision dated 12.02.2025 (Neutral Citation 2025:MHC:591) — Two writ petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus challenged notices dated 27.05.2024 issued by the Commissioner, Vaniyambadi Municipality (communication letter Nos.0001/2024/F1 and 0002/2024/F1) to the petitioners, who were found constructing wholly unauthorised buildings without building plan permission; fourth respondent G.B.Nanda Kumar had been impleaded by order dated 14.11.2024. Holding that an alternate statutory remedy must first be exhausted, that the High Court cannot conduct a roving inquiry into construction-related illegalities, and that the Municipal Authorities acted well within their statutory powers with no infirmity, the Court dismissed both writ petitions with no costs and closed the connected miscellaneous petitions, leaving the Municipal Authorities free to proceed pursuant to the impugned notices and to demolish unauthorised buildings after following due process.

¶1

2025:MHC:591

¶2

W.P.Nos.17699 & 17702 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶4

DATED : 12.02.2025

¶5

CORAM :

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR

¶9

W.P.Nos.17699 & 17702 of 2024

¶10

and

¶11

W.M.P.Nos.19459 & 19461 of 2024

¶12

1.Nagalakshmi

¶13

2.K.Samraj

¶14

... Petitioner in WP.No.17699/2024 ... Petitioner in WP.No.17702/2024

¶15

Vs.

¶16

1.The Commissioner, Vaniyambadi Municipality, Vaniyambadi, Thirupathur District.

¶17

2.The Director Town and Country Planning, Opposite to LIC, Chengalvaryan, Building, Fourth Floor, 807, Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 002.

¶18

3.The Secretary to Government, Town and Country Planning, Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.

¶19

4.G.B.Nanda Kumar

¶20

... Respondents in 2WPs

¶21

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 1 of 7

¶22

W.P.Nos.17699 & 17702 of 2024

¶23

[R4 impleaded as per order dated 14.11.2024 in WMP.Nos. 34974 & 34982/2024 in WP.Nos.17699 & 17702/2024]

¶24

Prayer in WP.No.17699/2024: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, c alling for the records relating to the impugned order dated 27.05.2024 in communication letter No.0001/2024/F1 passed by 1^st respondent and quash the same consequently directing the 2^nd respondent to grant planning permission to the petitioner property situated in Ward No F Block No 23 Town S. No 1 part situated at Door No.24/165, Pudhur Narayanasamy Mesthiri street, Vaniyambadi Town Thirupathur District which situated in the petitioner agriculture land and grant such other relief.

¶25

Prayer in WP.No.17702/2024: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, C alling for the records relating to the impugned order dated 27.05.2024 in communication letter No.0002/2024/F1 passed by 1st respondent and quash the same consequently directing the 2nd respondent to grant planning permission to the petitioner property situated in Ward No F Block No 23 Town S. No 1 part situated at Door No 24/165 Pudhur Narayanasamy Mesthiri street, Vaniyambadi Town Thirupathur District which situated in the petitioner agriculture land and grant such other relief as this Court.

¶26

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 2 of 7

¶27

W.P.Nos.17699 & 17702 of 2024

¶28

For Petitioner	: Mrs.R.T.Sundari (In 2 WPs)
For R1	: Mr.P.Srinivas Standing Counsel (In 2 WPs)
For R2 & R3	: Mr.T.Chandrasekaran Special Government Pleader (In 2 WPs)
For R4	: Mr.G.Nicul Anand For M/s.G.Vijay Anand Associates (In 2 WPs)

¶29

COMMON ORDER

¶30

[Order of the Court is made by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J. ]

¶31

The notices issued by the Commissioner of Vanniyampadi Municipality dated 27.05.2024 are under challenge in the present writ petitions.

¶32

The writ petitioners are constructing buildings without obtaining

¶33

building plan permission from the competent Municipal Authority. The buildings under construction are wholly unauthorised. After conducting an inspection, the Commissioner, Vanniyambadi Municipality issued impugned

¶34

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 3 of 7

¶35

W.P.Nos.17699 & 17702 of 2024

¶36

notices to the writ petitioners, which the petitioners subsequently challenged in the present writ proceedings.

¶37

Alternate remedy is contemplated under the Act. If at all the petitioners are aggrieved, they have to exhaust the said remedy in the manner contemplated. Factual determinations, verification of documents, if any are to be done only by the competent authorities and the Appellate/Revional Authorities. High Court cannot conduct roving inquiry in respect of the illegalities in the matter of construction of buildings. Therefore, after adjudication and passing of an order, recording the facts, the High Court will be in a position to exercise its powers of judicial review in an effective manner.

¶38

The actions initiated by the Municipal Authorities under the Act and issuance of impugned notices, are well within their powers conferred under the Statutes and Rules in force and there is no infirmity. Consequently, the respondents/Municipal Authorities are at liberty to proceed with all further actions in pursuance to the impugned notices issued and if any unauthorised buildings are identified it is to be demolished by following the due process.

¶39