Disposed¶42

Indhra v. the District Collector

Madras HC25 Feb 2025WP/2784/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Unauthorised construction; demolition directions; writ of mandamus; Article 226 Constitution of India; violation of Planning Permission Order ROC No.39/2023 dated 15.02.2024; Survey No.320/11 Balajengamanalli Village Nallampally Taluk Dharmapuri District; Section 86 penalty clauses; criminal prosecution of building violators; builders/contractors examined for abutment; enquiry and due procedure; three-month completion timeline; petition disposed of with directions; no order as to costs.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of with directions: respondents 1 to 3 to complete the enquiry process, demolish unauthorised constructions identified if any following due procedures, initiate criminal prosecution, and complete the entire exercise within three months from receipt of a copy of the order; no order as to costs. ¶42

Indhra Vs the District Collector — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶42

Issue for consideration

Whether a writ of mandamus should issue directing respondents 1 to 3 to remove the unauthorised construction made by the 4th respondent in Survey No.320/11, Balajengamanalli Village, Nallampally Taluk, Dharmapuri District, in violation of the Planning Permission Order ROC No.39/2023 dated 15.02.2024, acting on the petitioner's representation dated 26.12.2024. +1 more

¶24

Court's answer

All further actions are to be initiated in pursuance to the notice already issued to the fourth respondent, who is at liberty to defend his case.

¶40

Ratio / Principle

Respondents 1 to 3 are directed to complete the enquiry process and demolish unauthorised constructions identified, if any, by following due procedures.

¶41

Key takeaways

Criminal prosecution is also to be initiated.ratio¶41
The entire exercise is to be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.ratio¶41
While initiating criminal prosecution against such violators, the builders/contractors are also to be examined whether they have committed 'abutment'.obiter

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court, W.P. No.2784 of 2025 (Indhra v. District Collector, Dharmapuri & others; S.M. Subramaniam & K. Rajasekar JJ.; decided 25.02.2025) - Adjacent landowner sought a writ of mandamus under Article 226 for removal of unauthorised construction made by the 4th respondent (R. Sudhakar) in Survey No.320/11, Balajengamanalli Village, Nallampally Taluk, Dharmapuri District, in violation of the Planning Permission Order ROC No.39/2023 dated 15.02.2024. Inspection by the 3rd respondent and the BDO's written instructions (letter dated 18.02.2025) confirmed large-scale unauthorised construction; notice had been issued and explanations submitted. The Court disposed of the petition, directing respondents 1 to 3 to proceed on the issued notice, complete the enquiry process, demolish unauthorised constructions identified if any by following due procedures, and initiate criminal prosecution (builders/contractors also to be examined for 'abutment'), the entire exercise within three months of receipt of the order; no order as to costs.

¶1

W.P.No.2784 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 25.02.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. M. SUBRAMANIAM

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. RAJASEKAR

¶8

Writ Petition No.2784 of 2025

Indhra

... Petitioner

Vs.

The District Collector, Dharmapuri, Dharmapuri District.

¶13

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Dharmapuri, Dharmapuri District.

¶14

The Block Development Officer / Executive Officer, Ilakkiyapatti Panchayat Union, Dharmapuri District.

¶15

R.Sudhakar Respondents

¶16

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents 1 to 3 to remove the unauthorised construction made by the 4^th respondent in Survey

¶17

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 1/6

¶18

W.P.No.2784 of 2025

¶19

No.320/11 situated at Balajengamanalli Village, Nallampally Taluk, Dharmapuri District in violation of the Planning Permission Order issued by the 3^rd respondent in ROC No.39/2023, dated 15.02.2024 based on the petitioner's representation dated 26.12.2024 within stipulated time.

¶20

For Petitioner : Mr. C. Prabakaran For R1 & R2 : Mr. T. Chandraselaran Special Government Pleader For R3 : Mr. M. Muthusamy, Government Advocate For R4 : Mr. S. Esaikkimuthu

¶21

ORDER

¶22

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

¶23

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

¶24

to 3 to remove unauthorized construction made by the 4^th respondent in Survey No.320/11 situated at Balajengamanalli Village, Nallampally Taluk, Dharmapuri District in violation of the Planning Permission Order issued by the 3^rd respondent in ROC No.39/2023, dated 15.02.2024 based on the petitioner's representation dated 26.12.2024 within stipulated time.

¶25

The fourth respondent is constructing a building and the petitioner,

¶26

who is the adjacent land owner found that the petitioner is constructing

¶27

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/6

¶28

2/6

¶29

W.P.No.2784 of 2025

¶30

unauthorized constructions in violation of the building plan permission granted. Since large scale violations are noticed, the petitioner made a complaint to the third respondent. The third respondent conducted an inspection and found large scale unauthorized constructions are put up by the fourth respondent in his land.

¶31

The written instructions given to the Special Government Pleader

¶32

by the Block Development Officer vide letter dated 18.02.2025 reveals that the fourth respondent has put up unauthorized constructions to larger extent and consequently notice was issued to the fourth respondent.

¶33

The learned counsel for the fourth respondent would submit that

¶34

the notice has already been received by the fourth respondent, who in turn submitted his explanations.

¶35

Pertinently, the Act contemplates penalty clauses under Section 86

¶36

onwards, while initiating criminal prosecution against such violators, the builders/contractors are also to be examined, whether they have committed abutment.

¶37

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3/6

¶38

3/6

¶39

W.P.No.2784 of 2025

¶40

That being so, all further actions are to be initiated in pursuance to

¶41

the notice already issued to the fourth respondent. The fourth respondent is at liberty to defend his case. The respondents 1 to 3 are directed to complete the enquiry process and demolish unauthorized constructions identified if any, by following the due procedures. The criminal prosecution is also to be initiated. The entire exercise is directed to be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶42