Disposed¶41

T.Babu v. The District Collector / Monitoring Committee

Madras HC6 Apr 2026WP(MD)/13764/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

District Collector prior approval for buildings for public worship or religious purposes; Annexure XVII Tamil Nadu Combined Development and Building Rules 2019; Rule 4(3) Tamil Nadu Panchayats Building Rules 1997; Sy.No.483/5 Methukummal Village Kanyakumari; T.Babu petitioner vs Alexander fifth respondent; writ of mandamus; building cannot be used contrary to statutory mandate; demolition denied; disposed with declaration; no costs; Madras High Court Madurai Bench; G.R.Swaminathan J.; R.Poornima J.

What did the court decide?

Declaration in favour of the writ petitioner that, since District Collector approval was never obtained or even proposed, the fifth respondent cannot use the building for any purpose contrary to the statutory rule; demolition denied; writ petition disposed of, no costs. ¶41

T.Babu Vs The District Collector / Monitoring… — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶41

Issue for consideration

Whether the building put up by the fifth respondent is intended for public worship or religious purposes, so that prior approval of the District Collector had to be obtained before putting it up. +1 more

¶38

Court's answer

Before putting up a building intended for public worship or religious purposes, prior approval of the District Collector must have been obtained.

¶39

Ratio / Principle

The District Collector's approval had neither been obtained nor even proposed; accordingly, the fifth respondent cannot use the building in question contrary to the statutory mandate.

¶39

Key takeaways

The petitioner cannot seek demolition of the building.ratio¶39
The building in question cannot be used for any purpose contrary to the statutory rule.ratio¶39

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (Madurai Bench), W.P.(MD)No.13764 of 2024, disposed of on 06.04.2026 (order delivered by G.R.Swaminathan, J., bench including R.Poornima, J.). A Roman Catholic resident (T.Babu) sought a writ of mandamus to stop construction by his Protestant Christian neighbour (fifth respondent, Alexander) at Sy. No.483/5, Methukummal Village, Kanyakumari District. Under Annexure XVII of the Tamil Nadu Combined Development and Building Rules, 2019 (position earlier governed by Rule 4(3) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Building Rules, 1997), a building intended for public worship or religious purposes requires prior approval of the District Collector. The learned Additional Government Pleader confirmed that neither approval nor even a proposal had been put up. The Court held the building cannot be used for any purpose contrary to the statutory mandate, denied demolition, and disposed of the petition with a declaration in favour of the petitioner; no costs.

¶1

W.P.(MD)No.13764 of 2024

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 06.04.2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN and THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.POORNIMA

¶6

W.P.(MD)No.13764 of 2024

T.Babu

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The District Collector / Monitoring Committee, Kanyakumari District.

¶11

2.The Superintendent of Police, Kanyakumari District.

¶12

3.The Block Development Officer, Munjirai Union Office, Kanyakumari District.

¶13

4.The Inspector of Police, Kollancode Police Station, Kanyakumari District.

¶14

5.Alexander

¶15

... Respondents

¶16

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1st respondent to stop all illegal construction of religious institution without any proper approval made in Sy. No.483/5, Methukummal

¶17

¶18

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

¶19

W.P.(MD)No.13764 of 2024

¶20

Village, Nadaikavu, Killioor Taluk, Kanyakumari District by the 5th respondent herein vide the petitioner's representation dated 20.03.2024.

¶21

(Prayer is amended vide order dated 06.04.2026 in W.M.P.(MD)No.13160 of 2024 in W.P.(MD)No.13764 of 2024 by GRSJ & RPJ).

¶22

For Petitioner : Mr.D.Saravanan

¶23

For Respondents : Mr.G.V.Vairam Santhosh, Addl. Government Pleader for R1 & R3. Mr.K.Gnanasekarn, Govt. Advocate(Crl. Side) for R2 & R4. Mr.T.S.Mohammed Mohideen for R5

¶24

ORDER

¶25

(Order of the Court was delivered by G.R.Swaminathan, J.)

¶26

Heard both sides.

¶27

2.The contest is between the writ petitioner who is a practicing

¶28

roman catholic and the fifth respondent who is a practicing protestant Christian. Both are residents of in Methukummal Village, Killiyoor Taluk, Kanyakumari District. The petitioner alleges that the fifth respondent is putting up a religious building illegally.

¶29

2/6

¶30

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

¶31

W.P.(MD)No.13764 of 2024

¶32

3.The fifth respondent has filed a counter affidavit. He states that

¶33

he has put up the construction only after getting approval from the local body. According to him, the first floor is used for residential purpose whereas the ground floor is used as a prayer house. According to him, the ground floor is not a church as such. As per Annexure – XVII of Tamil Nadu Combined Development and Building Rules 2019, the competent authority shall not entertain any building application for construction of buildings in relation to any religious institution unless such application is accompanied with a No Objection Certificate obtained from the District Collector concerned. Earlier, the position was governed by the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Building Rules, 1997. Rule 4(3) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Building Rules, 1997, reads as follows:-

¶34

“4.Application for approval of sites for building and huts - (3) No site shall be used for the construction of a building intended for public worship or religious purposes without the prior approval of the Collector of the district who may refuse such approval, if in his opinion, the use of the site and buildings is likely to endanger public peace and order.”

¶35

3/6

¶36

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

¶37

W.P.(MD)No.13764 of 2024

¶38

5.The question is not whether the fifth respondent has erected a

¶39

church. The question is whether the building is intended for public worship or religious purposes. If that be so, before putting up the building, prior approval of the District Collector must have been obtained. The learned Additional Government Pleader categorically states that the District Collector's approval has not been obtained. Even a proposal has not been put up to him. In these circumstances, the fifth respondent cannot use the building in question contrary to the statutory mandate. The petitioner cannot seek demolition of the building. However, the building in question cannot be used for any purpose contrary to the aforesaid statutory rule.

¶40

6.With the aforesaid declaration in favour of the writ petitioner,

¶41

this writ petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶42

(G.R.S. J.,) & (R.P. J.,) 06.04.2026 NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No ias

¶43

4/6

¶44

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

¶45

W.P.(MD)No.13764 of 2024