Allowed¶34

R.K.Ramanathan, v. the Commissioner of Municipal

Mandamus under Article 226 – refund of regularisation fee

Madras HC10 Dec 2025WP(MD)/9300/2019

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Refund of regularisation fee; Section 113-B Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act 1971; Rule 3 Tamil Nadu Municipal Corporations Regularisation Rules 2002; unauthorised deviated commercial construction Trichy Corporation; building demolished; mandamus Article 226; Consumer Action Group v. State of Tamil Nadu (2006) 4 CTC 483 distinguished; Section 113-A ultra vires; Madurai Bench; W.P.(MD)No.9300 of 2019; R.Vijayakumar J.; refund within 12 weeks.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; respondents 1 and 2 directed to refund Rs.17,59,600/- to the writ petitioner within 12 weeks from receipt of a copy of the order; no costs. ¶34

R.K.Ramanathan, Vs the Commissioner of Municipal — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition allowed; respondents 1 and 2 directed to refund Rs.17,59,600/- to the writ petitioner within 12 weeks from receipt of a copy of the order; no costs.

¶34

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents are bound to refund the regularisation fee of Rs.17,59,600/- paid by the petitioner under his application dated 15.07.2002 towards regularisation of his unauthorised construction, given that regularisation was not granted and the building has been demolished. +1 more

¶19

Court's answer

Where regularisation sought under Section 113-B of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 is not granted and the petitioner has already demolished the building, the Corporation cannot retain the regularisation fee paid by the writ petitioner.

¶32

Ratio / Principle

The observations in (2006) 4 CTC 483 are not applicable to the present case: what was put to challenge in that judgment was only Section 113-A of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 (declared ultra vires), whereas the petitioner sought regularisation under Section 113-B, which was never put to challenge.

¶28

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Mandamus under Article 226 — refund of regularisation fee — petitioner paid Rs.17,59,600/- on application dated 15.07.2002 towards regularisation of unauthorised/deviated commercial construction in Trichy Corporation area, invoking Section 113-B of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 read with Rule 3 of the Tamil Nadu Municipal Corporations (Regularisation of Unauthorised or Deviated and Development and Construction of Building) Rules, 2002; regularisation not granted and building subsequently fully demolished. Respondents resisted reliance on clause 13 of paragraph 32 of the Division Bench decision in Consumer Action Group v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2006) 4 CTC 483. HELD: (i) that judgment arose out of a challenge to Section 113-A alone (declared ultra vires of the constitution) and its observations do not apply to a fee paid under the unchallenged Section 113-B; (ii) where regularisation under Section 113-B is not granted and the building stands demolished, the Corporation cannot retain the regularisation fee. Writ petition allowed; respondents 1 and 2 directed to refund Rs.17,59,600/- within 12 weeks; no costs.

¶1

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶2

DATED: 10.12.2025

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR

¶5

W.P.(MD)No.9300 of 2019

¶6

R.K.Ramanathan

¶7

...Petitioner

¶8

The Commissioner of Municipal Administration, Chepauk, Chennai-5

¶9

The Director of Town and Country Planning, Chennai – 2.

¶10

The Commissioner, Trichy Corporation, Trichy ...Respondents

¶11

PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents herein to refund Rs.17,59,600/- (Rupees Seventeen lakhs fifty nine thousand six hundred only) towards regularization fee received from the petitioner under application dated 15/07/2002 together with interest at 12% p.a, within a reasonable period.

¶12

For Petitioner : M/s.P.Vadivel

¶13

For Respondents

¶14

: M/s.N.Satheesh Kumar Additional Government Pleader for R1 and R2 Mr.K.R.Kishore Ram

¶15

for M/s.R.B.Law Associates for R3

¶16

1/6

¶17

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

¶18

ORDER

¶19

The present writ petition has been filed seeking a mandamus directing the respondents herein to refund a sum of Rs.17,59,600/- which was paid by the writ petitioner towards regularisation of the unauthorised construction put up by the petitioner by way of application dated 15.07.2002.

¶20

The petitioner herein has put up a construction meant for commercial purposes within Trichy Municipal City Corporation area. Since there was huge deviation, relying upon Section 113-B of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 and based upon Rule 3 of the Tamil Nadu Municipal Corporations(Regularisation of Unauthorised or Deviated and Development and Construction of Building) Rules, 2002, the petitioner has paid a sum of Rs.17,59,600/- as regularisation fee. However, the regularisation was not granted by the Municipal Corporation.

¶21

According to the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner, the building has been fully demolished. Thereafter, the petitioner has approached the respondents authorities for refund of the regularisation fee paid by him. The same was not considered. Hence, the present writ petition has been filed.

¶22

The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 herein relying upon paragraph No.5 of the counter submitted that in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench in Consumer Action Group, rep. by its Trustee, Tara Murali and others Vs. the

¶23

2/6

¶24

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

¶25

State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Sectary to Government and others, (2006) 4 CTC 483 especially clause 13 of paragraph No.32, the petitioner is not eligible to claim refund of the regularisation fee. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.

¶26

I have carefully considered the submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on record.

¶27

The only ground on which the prayer in the writ petition is objected to, is in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench reported in (2006) 4 CTC 483 . A perusal of the judgment reveals that Section 113-A of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 was put to challenge. The Hon'ble Division Bench was pleased to declare that Section 113-A is ultra vires of constitution. In the said judgment, in paragraph No.32(xiii), the regularisation fee collected shall be kept aside in a separate fund and could not be merged with the general account of the State of Tamil Nadu.

¶28

A perusal of the facts of the present case reveals that the petitioner had sought for regularisation relying upon Section 113-B of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 19781 and not under Section 113-A of the said Act. It is also clear that Section 113-B has not been put to challenge. That apart, the judgment reported in (2006) 4 CTC 483 clearly reveals that what was put to challenge was only Section 113-A. Therefore, the observations made in the said judgment are not applicable to the facts of the present case.

¶29

3/6

¶30

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

¶31

In the present case, the petitioner has paid regularisation fee relying

¶32

upon Section 113-B of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971. The regularisation has not been granted and the petitioner has already demolished the building. In such an event, the Corporation cannot retain the regularisation fee paid by the writ petitioner.

¶33

In view of the above said deliberations, this writ petition stands

¶34

allowed. The respondents 1 and 2 are directed to refund a sum of Rs.17,59,600/(Rupees Seventeen Lakhs Fifty Nine Thousand and Six Hundred only) to the writ petitioner within a period of 12(twelve) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.

¶35

10.12.2025

¶36

NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes/No Internet: Yes/No RJR

¶37

4/6

¶38

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

¶39

¶40