Dismissed¶42

S.Ammu @ Sarala Marget v. the Executive Engineer

Madras HC15 Jul 2026WP/27237/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras HC WP 27237/2026 dismissed 15-07-2026; Greater Chennai Corporation Zone-V Demolition/Form-3 Notice No.Dn/61/53/2025 dated 12.01.2026 upheld; unauthorized structure without planning permission, Egmore; Section 56 Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act 1971; Article 226 certiorarified mandamus refused; Form-2 inspection 05.01.2026; Lock and Seal reminder 18.06.2026; non-speaking order objection rejected; no costs.

What did the court decide?

The authorities, after affording sufficient opportunity and on inspection, had issued the Lock and Seal notice being satisfied that the structure cannot remain without Planning Permission. ¶41

S.Ammu @ Sarala Marget Vs the Executive Engineer — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶42

Issue for consideration

Whether the Demolition Notice issued by the 2nd respondent (No.Dn/61/53/2025 dated 12.01.2026) suffers arbitrariness and illegality, is void, and should be quashed, with directions not to demolish the petitioner's house. +1 more

¶30

Court's answer

The authorities, after affording sufficient opportunity and on inspection, had issued the Lock and Seal notice being satisfied that the structure cannot remain without Planning Permission.

¶41

Ratio / Principle

The structure which the petitioner wants to protect is admittedly without Planning Permission.

¶41

Key takeaways

There is no merit in the present writ petition to interfere with the order impugned, which has been passed after affording due opportunity to the petitioner.ratio¶41
The very fact that the building stands without permissions speaks for itself and no further detail is required in the impugned order.ratio¶41

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (Dr. G. Jayachandran J., authoring, with Mrs. N. Mala J.) dismisses WP No. 27237 of 2026 on 15-07-2026. The petitioner challenged the Demolition/Form-3 Notice No.Dn/61/53/2025 dated 12.01.2026 issued by the Executive Engineer, Greater Chennai Corporation Zone-V, as arbitrary, illegal, void and a non-speaking order passed in haste. The Court found the structure at Door No.56/4, Police Commissioner office Road, Egmore, admittedly without Planning Permission; the impugned notice followed an earlier Demolition Notice of 16.06.2025 under Section 56 of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971, a First Bench direction in WP.No.28986/2025 to consider a detailed representation, a Form-2 inspection notice (31.12.2025; inspection 05.01.2026) and a Lock-and-Seal reminder of 18.06.2026. Holding that sufficient opportunity was afforded and that the building standing without permissions spoke for itself, requiring no further detail in the impugned order, the Court declined to interfere and dismissed the writ petition without costs, closing the connected miscellaneous petitions.

¶1

WP No. 27237 of 2026

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 15-07-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE DR JUSTICE G. JAYACHANDRAN

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE N. MALA

¶8

WP No. 27237 of 2026 AND WMP NO. 29820 OF 2026,WMP NO. 29821 OF 2026

¶9

S.Ammu @ Sarala Marget W/o.T.Sankar, No.56/4, Police Commissioner office Road, Egmore, Chennai-600 008

¶10

..Petitioner(s)

¶11

¶12

the Executive Engineer Zone-V, Greater Chennai Corporation, No.61, Basin Bridge Road, Chennai-600 021

¶13

the Executive Engineer zone-V, Greater Chennai Corporation, No.61, Basin Bridge Road, chennai-600 021

¶14

the Assistant Engineer Zone-V, Division-61 Greater Chennai Corporation, No.23, Driver Street, Pudupet, Chennai-600 002.

¶15

S.Muthusamy S/o.Late.Shanmugam, No.61, Genga Reddy Street, Egmore, Chennai-600 008

¶16

..Respondent(s)

¶17

Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records

¶18

Page1 of 5

¶19

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

¶20

WP No. 27237 of 2026

¶21

pertaining to the impugned notice issued by the 2nd respondent having notice No.Dn/61/ 53/ 2025 dated 12.01.2026 and quash the same as arbitrary, illegal and void and subsequently direct the 1st to 3rd respondents not to demolish the house of the petitioner situated at Door No.56/4, Police Commissioner office Road, Egmore, Chennai-600 080

¶22

WP No. 27237 of 2026

¶23

For Petitioner(s): M.Muralidharan

¶24

For Respondent(s): Mr.S.Gopinathan, St.C. For R1 To R3

¶25

Order

¶26

(Order of the Court was made by Dr.G.Jayachandran J.)

¶27

(1) Mr.S.Gopinathan, learned Standing counsel accepts notice on behalf of

¶28

the respondents 1 to 3. Since no adverse order is passed against the 4^th respondent, notice to the 4^th respondent is dispensed with.

¶29

(2) By consent, the main writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.

¶30

(3) The petitioner herein, challenging the Demolition Notice issued by the 2^nd respondent on the ground that the notice suffers arbitrariness, illegality and hence, void.

¶31

(4) According to the writ petitioner, she is the absolute owner of the building bearing Door No.56/4, Police Commissioner Office Road, Egmore. On a complaint by the 4^th respondent, the official respondents initiated proceedings for removal of the structure which is in possession of the petitioner’s family for more than 150 years.

¶32

Page2 of 5

¶33

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

¶34

WP No. 27237 of 2026

¶35

(5) The learned counsel for the writ petitioner submitted that the impugned order is a non-speaking order and passed in haste without affording sufficient opportunity to the petitioner.

¶36

(6) The learned Standing counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 submitted that the writ petitioner has not come to the Court with clean hands and not placed the facts in entirety. Earlier, when the Demolition Notice was issued vide proceedings dated 16.06.2025, the writ petitioner along with two others, approached this Court by filing WP.No.28986/2025, seeking a certiorarified mandamus, to quash the said Demolition Notice issued under Section 56 of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971. After hearing the submissions of the respondents, the writ petition was disposed of by the Hon’ble First Bench of this Court, by permitting the petitioners 2 and 3 therein, to submit a detailed representation to the 2^nd respondent therein, within a period of ten days and on receipt of the said representation, the 2^nd respondent was directed to examine the same on merits and to pass appropriate orders thereafter. Subsequently, on 31.12.2025, notice for inspection under Form-2 was issued to the petitioners therein including the petitioner herein, fixing 05.01.2026 as the date of inspection. After inspection and ascertaining that the structure is without planning permission, the Corporation has issued Form-3 notice on 12.01.2026, directing the writ petitioner to discontinue the use of the building within 30 days and

¶37

Page3 of 5

¶38

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

¶39

WP No. 27237 of 2026

¶40

remove the structure. Since the writ petitioner has not removed the structure, a reminder notice was issued on 18.06.2026, informing the petitioner that if the owner or the occupant failed to discontinue the use of the land, the authority will proceed with Lock and Seal action.

¶41

(7) From the records and the affidavit, we find that the structure which the petitioner wants to protect, is admittedly without Planning Permission. While so, the authorities, after affording sufficient opportunity and on inspection, had issued the Lock and Seal notice being satisfied that the structure cannot remain without Planning Permission. Hence, we find no merit in the present writ petition to interfere with the order impugned, which has been passed after affording due opportunity to the petitioner and the very fact that the building stands without permissions speaks for itself and no further detail is required in the impugned order.

¶42