P.Pison v. The Director / Assistant Director (Fac)

Madras HC13 Jun 2025WP(MD)/13749/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition under Article 226 challenging notice under Section 56(1) of Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act for removal of unauthorized construction dismissed; remedy is revision under Section 80A; writ court cannot adjudicate disputed facts; unauthorized constructions pose public danger and environmental damage.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; petitioner at liberty to file revision under Section 80A of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971. No order as to costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions closed. ¶¶28-¶29

P.Pison Vs The Director / Assistant Director (Fac) — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶28-¶29

Issue for consideration

Whether a writ petition under Article 226 is maintainable against a notice issued under Section 56(1) of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 for removal of unauthorized construction +2 more

¶¶21-¶23

Court's answer

The statutory remedy for a person aggrieved by a notice under Section 56(1) is to file a revision before the Government under Section 80A of the Town and Country Planning Act; the writ court cannot adjudicate disputed facts in such matters.

¶¶23-¶24

Ratio / Principle

A writ petition under Article 226 is not maintainable against a notice issued under Section 56(1) of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 unless the notice is issued by an incompetent authority lacking jurisdiction or is tainted with mala fides.

¶¶22-¶23

Key takeaways

Unauthorized constructions pose danger to the public, cause environmental damage, and threaten road users and neighbours; no sympathy can be shown towards such constructions.obiter¶¶27
The writ petition is dismissed; the petitioner is at liberty to approach the Government under Section 80A of the Act.ratio¶¶28-¶29

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging a notice issued under Section 56(1) of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 for removal of unauthorized construction. The Court held that a writ petition under Article 226 is not maintainable against such a notice unless it is issued by an incompetent authority or is mala fide. The proper remedy for the aggrieved party is to file a revision before the Government under Section 80A of the Act. The Court also observed that unauthorized constructions pose danger to the public, cause environmental damage, and threaten road users and neighbours, and no sympathy can be shown towards them. The petitioner was granted liberty to approach the Government under Section 80A. No costs were awarded.

¶1

W.P.(MD).No.13749 of 2025

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 13.06.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN

¶6

W.P.(MD).No.13749 of 2025 and W.M.P.(MD).Nos.9914 and 9916 of 2025

P.Pison

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Director / Assistant Director (FAC), District Town and Country Planning Office, Kanyakumari District.

¶11

2.The District Collector, Kanyakumari District.

¶12

3.The Commissioner, Nagercoil City Municipal Corporation, Nagercoil. ... Respondents

¶13

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned communication issued by the 1^st respondent dated 19.03.2025 in Notice No.314/2025/KKDTCP and quash the same and consequently direct the 2^nd respondent to grant permission for the functioning of prayer hall at Door No.105/C2, Crown Street, Vathiyarvilai, Nagarcoil, Kanyakumari District,

¶14

Page 1 of 5

¶15

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

¶16

W.P.(MD).No.13749 of 2025

¶17

based on the petitioner's representation dated 03.03.2025 within the stipulated period.

¶18

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Rajeshwaran For R-1 & R-2 : Mr.J.Ashok Additional Government Pleader For R-3 : Mr.F.Deepak

¶19

ORDER

¶20

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

¶21

The notice issued under Section 56(1) of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 in Notice No.314/2025/KKDTCP dated 19.03.2025, is under challenge in the present Writ Petition.

¶22

No Writ against the notice is maintainable unless such notice has been

¶23

issued by an incompetent authority having no jurisdiction or tainted with the allegations of malafides. Notice for locking and sealing is a step taken by the authorities after conducting a field inspection and after ascertaining the fact that the building is unauthorised one. If at all the petitioner has any ground, he has to prefer a revision before the Government under Section 80A of the Town and Country Planning Act. Therefore, the Writ Court cannot adjudicate disputed facts of this nature.

¶24

Page 2 of 5

¶25

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

¶26

W.P.(MD).No.13749 of 2025

¶27

Unauthorised constructions are posing danger to public at large. Such constructions are not only causing environmental damage, but also a threat to the road users and neighbours. Therefore, there cannot be any misplaced sympathy against the unauthorised constructions made by any person.

¶28

In the present case, the authorities found that the subject building has unauthorised constructions and thereafter, issued notice for removal of unauthorised construction under Section 56(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act. That being the action initiated, the Writ Petition is not maintainable. However, the petitioner is at liberty to approach the Government under Section 80A of the Act.

¶29