Disposed¶41

N.Muthukumar v. The State of Tamilnadu

Madras HC3 Mar 2026WP(MD)/5740/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

De-sealing of sealed building at Kodaikkanal; unauthorized conversion of residential building to commercial by vendor; violation of plan approval; Section 80A Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act 1971 application pending before first respondent; direction to first respondent to decide within two months; New Master Plan 2019; C.R.P(MD) No.2191 of 2017 dismissed 10.07.2023; W.P(MD) No.5740 of 2026; Madurai Bench of Madras High Court; writ of mandamus.

What did the court decide?

No mandamus for de-sealing issued; the first respondent directed to pass orders on the petitioner's pending application within two (2) months from receipt of a copy of the order; no costs; connected miscellaneous petition closed. ¶41

N.Muthukumar Vs The State of Tamilnadu — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶41

Issue for consideration

Whether a Writ of Mandamus should be issued directing the first and third respondents to de-seal the petitioner's premises at Kodaikkanal so as to modify the building for residential purpose as per the New Master Plan, 2019. +1 more

¶22

Court's answer

The Court declined to give any specific directions for de-sealing of the premises, since another Division Bench has passed a series of orders for taking action against such violations.

¶40

Ratio / Principle

It is for the first respondent to pass orders on the application submitted by the petitioner within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

¶40

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (MD) under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a Writ of Mandamus to de-seal premises in Ward-D, Block-27, T. Survey No. 9/2B, Anandhagiri, 7th Street, Kodaikkanal, for modification to residential use under the New Master Plan, 2019. The petitioner purchased the incomplete, locked and sealed building on 12.12.2024 from the legal heirs of one Prabu; the vendor had permission from the Local Planning Authority, Kodaikkanal for residential construction but converted the building to commercial without completing construction as per the plan approval. The vendor's C.R.P(MD) No.2191 of 2017 was dismissed on 10.07.2023 with a direction to submit a fresh application for new plan permission. The petitioner's application under Section 80A of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 was pending before the first respondent when the building was once again sealed. The Court declined to give any specific directions, noting that another Division Bench has passed a series of orders for taking action against such violations, and directed the first respondent to pass orders on the pending application within two (2) months. Writ Petition disposed of; no costs; connected miscellaneous petition closed.

¶1

W.P(MD)No. 5740 of 2026

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 03.03.2026

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR AND

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN

¶7

W.P(MD)No. 5740 of 2026

¶8

¶9

W.M.P.(MD) No.4777 of 2026

¶10

N.Muthukumar

¶11

S.Rajagopal

¶12

R.Subramanian

¶13

M.Santhi. ... Petitioners

¶14

¶15

The State of Tamilnadu, Rep by its Principal Secretary, Department of Municipal Administration and Water Supply, Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009.

¶16

The District Collector, Dindigul District, Dindigul.

¶17

The Executive Authority / Commissioner, Local Planning Authority, Kodaikkannal Municipality, Kodaikkanal. ... Respondents

¶18

1/6

¶19

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

¶20

W.P(MD)No. 5740 of 2026

¶21

PRAYER:

¶22

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the first and third respondents to de-seal the petitioner’s premises situated in Ward-D, Block-27, T. Survey No. 9/2B- 0.02.77 Ares, Anandhagiri, 7th Street, Door No. 12/15- 2 and 3, Kodaikkanal in order to modify the above building for residential purpose as per the New Master Plan, 2019.

¶23

For Petitioner : Mr.K.K.Senthil Velan Senior Counsel for Mr.V.S. Kumara Guru

¶24

For R1 & R2 : Mr.P.T.Thiraviam Government Advocate For R3 : Mr.T.S.Mohammed Mohideen

¶25

ORDER

¶26

(Order of the Court was made by N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.)

¶27

The petitioner has come up with the prayer to deseal the petitioner’s premises situated in Ward-D, Block-27, T. Survey No. 9/2B0.02.77 Ares, Anandhagiri, 7th Street, Door No. 12/15- 2 and 3, Kodaikkanal.

¶28

It is the case of the petitioner that he has purchased the land and

¶29

building on 12.12.2024 from the legal heirs of one Prabu. At the time of purchase, the building was incomplete and it was locked and sealed by

¶30

2/6

¶31

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

¶32

W.P(MD)No. 5740 of 2026

¶33

the third respondent. According to the petitioner, his vendor has obtained necessary permission from the third respondent for the construction of residential building. However, he has not completed the construction of the building as per the plan approval. It is the contention that the petitioner has already submitted an application to convert the same into residential purposes under Section 80A of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 and the same is pending before the first respondent. However, now, once again the building has been sealed.

¶34

Hence, it is the contention that he has purchased the property from the vendor and the vendor has converted the building into commercial and he has no knowledge about the violation made by the vendor, and in any event, he has already given application to the first respondent under Section 80A of the Act. However, no orders have been passed.

¶35

The learned counsel for the third respondent brought to the notice of this Court that already C.R.P(MD) No.2191 of 2017 has been filed by the petitioner’s vendor, wherein this Court dismissed the C.R.P

¶36

3/6

¶37

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

¶38

W.P(MD)No. 5740 of 2026

¶39

on 10.07.2023, directing the petitioner therein to submit a fresh application for new plan permission.

¶40

Since the other Division Bench has passed a serious of orders for taking action against such violation, we are not inclined to give any specific directions. It is for the first respondent to pass orders on the application submitted by the petitioner in this regard within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶41