Dismissed¶38

D.Arunagiri v. the Commissioner

Madras HC10 Feb 2025WP/28490/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Mandamus; removal of lock and seal; unauthorized construction; no building plan permission; Greater Chennai Corporation; Nungambakkam; stop work notice 02.02.2023; deoccupation notice 02.01.2024; prenotice 14.06.2023; Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act 1971 Sections 56, 57, 85; Development Control Rules; plot below 110 sq. metres; writ petition dismissed; Article 226 Constitution of India.

What did the court decide?

A direction to remove the lock and seal of the dwelling house cannot be considered in the absence of establishing that the petitioner constructed the building by duly obtaining the building plan permission. ¶33

D.Arunagiri Vs the Commissioner — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

W.P.No.28490 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 10.02.2025

¶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.28490 of 2024

D.Arunagiri

... Petitioner

Vs.

The Commissioner, The Greater Chennai Corporation, Ripon Building, Chennai-600 003.

¶13

The Assistant Commissioner, The Chennai Corporation, The Greater Chennai, Ripon Building, Chennai – 600 003.

¶14

The Deputy Commissioner, The Corporation, The Greater Chennai, Ripon Building, Chennai – 600 003.

¶15

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

¶16

1/6

¶17

W.P.No.28490 of 2024

¶18

The Assistant Executive Engineer, The Chennai Corporation, Central Region Zone – IX, No.1, Lake Area, 4^th Cross Street, Nungambakkam, Chennai - 600 034. ... Respondents

¶19

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to remove the Lock and Seal of the petitioner dwelling house situated in No.7/4, Chokkattan Salai, Opp to Jayalakshmipuram, Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 034.

¶20

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Aswin Karthikeyan For R1 to R4 : Mr.D.B.R.Prabhu Senior Counsel for Greater Chennai Corporation

¶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 to

¶24

remove the Lock and Seal of the petitioner dwelling house situated in No.7/4, Chokkattan Salai, Opp to Jayalakshmipuram, Nungambakkam,

¶25

Chennai – 600 034.

¶26

Stop work notice was issued by the second respondent on

¶27

02.02.2023. The petitioner submitted his explanations stating that as per the

¶28

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

¶29

2/6

¶30

W.P.No.28490 of 2024

¶31

Development Control Rules, no permission needs to be obtained for construction of house since the extend of the plot belongs to the petitioner is below 110 sq. metres.

¶32

The authorities conducted an inspection and found that the petitioner constructed building without obtaining any building plan permission at all. Since the construction is wholly unauthorized, deoccupation notice was issued by the respondents on 02.01.2024. The petitioner submitted a reply. The authorities found that the petitioner has not obtained any building plan permission for constructing the subject house in the property.

¶33

The petitioner filed the present writ petition seeking a direction to remove the lock and seal of the petitioner dwelling house. Such a relief cannot be considered in the absence of establishing that the petitioner constructed the building, by duly obtaining the building plan permission.

¶34

The counter filed by the Chennai Corporation reveals that after inspecting the building in question action had been taken by issuing prenotice dated 14.06.2023 under Sections 56 and 57 read with Section 85 of https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶35

3/6

¶36

W.P.No.28490 of 2024

¶37

the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971, directing the petitioner to submit the approved plan within a period of fifteen (15) days. Since the petitioner could not able to produce any document to establish that he put up construction by duly obtaining the building plan permission, further actions were initiated.

¶38

Therefore this Court do not find any infirmity in respect of the actions initiated by the respondents. They are bound to continue the actions and remove the unauthorized constructions by following the due procedures. The petitioner has not established even a semblance of legal rights for considering the relief as he sought for in the present writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶39

(S.M.S., J.) (K.R.S., J) 10.02.2025

¶40

ssi Index: Yes Speaking Order: Yes/No Neutral Citation Case : Yes/No

¶41

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

4/6

W.P.No.28490 of 2024