Disposed¶50

B.Teepikha v. the Secretary to Government

Madras HC22 Apr 2025WP/20469/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

unauthorized construction; writ of mandamus; Chengalpattu Municipality; Section 135(1) Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Act 1998; notice for unauthorized additional construction; RCC columns and roof car parking shed without approval; building plan sanction BA. No.55/1993 dated 19.05.1993; representation dated 20.03.2024; New Survey No.642/2 Chengalpattu; twelve weeks completion direction; disposed of, no costs.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of with directions to the respondents to pursue all further actions under the procedure contemplated in the Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Act, 1998 against the 6th respondent's unauthorized construction, to be completed within twelve (12) weeks; no costs. ¶50

B.Teepikha Vs the Secretary to Government — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶50

Issue for consideration

Whether a writ of mandamus should issue directing respondents 1 to 5 to consider the petitioner's representation dated 20.03.2024 and to stop the alleged unauthorized construction by the 6th respondent on Old Survey No.642, New Survey No.642/2, Chengalpattu Town.

¶27

Court's answer

Since notice has already been issued by the authority under Section 135(1) of the Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Act, 1998, the respondents are directed to pursue all further actions by following the procedure contemplated under the Act.

¶46

Ratio / Principle

The said exercise is directed to be completed within a period of twelve (12) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

¶48

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (order by S.M.Subramaniam J.; Bench incl. K.Rajasekar J.) disposed of a writ of mandamus seeking consideration of the petitioner's representation dated 20.03.2024 and stoppage of alleged unauthorized construction by the 6th respondent on Old Survey No.642, New Survey No.642/2, 4th Ward, 9th Block, Vadukar Street @ Kalainar Karunanithi Street, Chengalpattu Town. The Commissioner, Chengalpattu Municipality's counter stated that the 6th respondent holds a 1993 plan sanction (BA. No.55/1993 dated 19.05.1993) and has added an open RCC column-and-roof, car-shed-type structure without approval, in respect of which notices had already been issued under Section 135(1) of the Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Act, 1998. Holding that such notice had already been issued, the Court directed the respondents to pursue all further actions by following the procedure contemplated under the Act and to complete the exercise within twelve (12) weeks from receipt of a copy of the order. Writ petition disposed of; no costs.

¶1

WP No. 20469 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 22-04-2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE S. M. SUBRAMANIAM AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR

¶6

WP No. 20469 of 2024

B.Teepikha

Petitioner(s)

1.The Secretary to Government, Housing and Development Department, Secretariat, Chennai 600 009.

¶11

2.The Director, Directorate of Town And Country Planning, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th Floor, C and E Market Road, Koyambedu, Chennai 600 107.

¶12

3.The Deputy Director, District Town and Country Planning, No.13, Varatharajar Street, Vedhachalam Nagar, Chengalpattu District.

¶13

4.The Commissioner, Chengalpattu Municipality,

¶14

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

¶15

WP No. 20469 of 2024

¶16

Changalpattu 603 001.

¶17

5.The Executive Office, Chengalpattu Municipality, Chengalpattu 603 001.

¶18

6.Mr.C.Barath,

¶19

Respondent(s)

¶20

WP No. 20469 of 2024

¶21

PRAYER

¶22

directing the 1 to 5 respondents to consider the petitioner's representation dated 20.03.2024, and to stop unauthorized construction by the 6th respondent on his property, measuring to an extent of 97.5 Sq. meters, comprised in old survey no.642, New survey no.642/2, situated 4th Ward, 9th Block, Vadukar Street @ Kalainar Karunanithi Street, Chengalpattu Town and Chengalpattu.

¶23

WP No. 20469 of 2024

¶24

For Petitioner(s): Mr.S.Anburaja For Respondent(s): Mr.E.Veda Bagath Singh Spl GP For R1 to R3 & R5 Mr.P.Srinivas, For R4 Mr.S.Ruban Prabu For R6

¶25

ORDER

¶26

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

¶27

The writ of mandamus has been instituted to direct the respondents 1 to 5

¶28

to consider the petitioner's representation dated 20.03.2024, and to stop

¶29

unauthorized construction being carried out by the 6th respondent on his

¶30

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

¶31

WP No. 20469 of 2024

¶32

property, measuring to an extent of 97.5 m2, comprised in Old Survey No.642, New Survey No.642/2, situated in the 4th Ward, 9th Block, Vadukar Street @ Kalainar Karunanithi Street, Chengalpattu Town.

¶33

With reference to the allegation set out in the present writ petition, the

¶34

Commissioner, Chengalpattu Municipality filed counter affidavit. The relevant paragraphs reads as under:

¶35

“ 4. In regard to the complaint of the petitioner

¶36

in paragraphs 6 and 7 the respondent herein denies the said statements. It is submitted that, firstly there is no parent wall in the site of the petitioner and what is available is only the incomplete columns that are put up at the boundary itself. The 6th respondent is already having a house in his site with the building plan sanction of the year 1993 in BA. No.55/1993 dated 19.05.1993. In addition to the said structure, the 6th respondent has put up an additional structure with RCC columns and roof alone without any floor or side covering in the front and side of his Building, in the nature of a car parking shed or a structure of similar nature. The said structure does not have any flooring

¶37

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

¶38

WP No. 20469 of 2024

¶39

or side wall.

¶40

5. On receipt of the further complaints of the petitioner, the 6th respondent was issued with the notices under Section 135(1) of the Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Act, 1998 for the unauthorized additional construction. There is no multi-storey construction by the 6th respondent as claimed by the petitioner in her affidavit. Only a open structure without any side walls and with columns and RCC roof has been constructed in the manner of a car shed. But under the Act and Rules, the same would be an additional structure and it cannot be put up without an approval. Therefore, appropriate action will be taken against the same.

¶41

6. It is humbly submitted that this Respondent will take further action against the unauthorized developments carried out by the 6th respondent by following up the notice already issued under Section 135 (1).”

¶42