Dismissed¶¶28

M.Alagarsamy v. The Commissioner

Madras HC6 Feb 2026WP(MD)/3500/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Unauthorized construction without planning permission; removal/demolition notice dated 03.02.2026 (Na.Ka.No.Ma2E/1960/24) by Madurai City Municipal Corporation; belated regularization/rectification application dated 27.01.2026; writ of certiorarified mandamus under Article 226; writ petition dismissed, no costs; connected W.M.P.(MD) No.2872 of 2026 closed; Madurai Bench of Madras High Court; W.P.(MD) No.3500 of 2026; Bench of Dr.Justice G.Jayachandran and Mr.Justice K.K.Ramakrishnan.

What did the court decide?

Because the petitioner constructed without obtaining planning permission and applied for rectification only after the respondents took steps for removal of the unauthorized portion, the Court was not inclined to entertain the writ petition. ¶¶24

M.Alagarsamy Vs The Commissioner — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

¶1

W.P.(MD) No.3500 of 2026

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 06.02.2026

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN

¶6

W.P.(MD) No.3500 of 2026 and W.M.P.(MD) No.2872 of 2026

M.Alagarsamy

... Petitioner

-vs-

1.The Commissioner Madurai City Municipal Corporation Aringar Anna Maligai Tallakulam Madurai-625 002

¶11

2.The District Town Planning Officer Madurai City Municipal Corporation Aringar Anna Maligai Tallakulam Madurai-625 002

¶12

_____________ Page 1 of 5_

¶13

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

¶14

W.P.(MD) No.3500 of 2026

¶15

3.The Assistant Commissioner Zonal Office-II (North) Madurai City Municipal Corporation Tallakulam Madurai-625 002 4.A.Alagarsamy ... Respondents

¶16

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records relating to impugned notice dated 03.02.2026 in proceedings Na.Ka.No.Ma2E/1960/24 passed by the 1^st respondent, quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the respondents No.1 to 3 to consider the revised plan and regularization application submitted by the petitioner dated 27.01.2026 in accordance with law.

¶17

For Petitioner : Mr.B.Prasanna Vinoth For Respondents : Mr.K.Sivabalan Standing Counsel

¶18

Page 2 of 5

¶19

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

¶20

W.P.(MD) No.3500 of 2026

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

[Order of the Court was made by DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN, J.]

¶23

The notice, dated 03.02.2026, issued by the first respondent, directing the petitioner to remove all his belongings from the portion of the building, which has been constructed by him without obtaining planning permission, is under challenge in this writ petition.

¶24

2. On perusal of the records, we find that the petitioner has made a construction without obtaining planning permission from the authority concerned and therefore, a notice was issued to the petitioner calling his explanation as to why the unauthorized portion of the building should not be removed. Further, it is seen that only after steps taken by the respondents for removal of the unauthorized portion of the building, the petitioner has applied for rectification of the unauthorized portion of the building. Hence, we are not inclined to entertain this writ petition.

¶25

Page 3 of 5

¶26

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

¶27

W.P.(MD) No.3500 of 2026

¶28

3. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs.

¶29

Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶30

[G.J., J.] [K.K.R.K., J.]