Madras High Court
Selvaganesh vs The Executive Officer on 15 July, 2025
Author: S.M.Subramaniam
Bench: S.M.Subramaniam, S.Srimathy
W.P(MD)No.20157 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 15.07.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
and
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY
W.P(MD)No.20157 of 2024
and
W.M.P(MD)No.17101 of 2024
Selvaganesh ... Petitioner
vs.
The Executive Officer,
Vadipatti Town Panchayat,
Vadipatti,
Madurai. ... Respondent
PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to
the impugned lock and seal notice of the respondent in Na.Ka.No.136/2024
dated 12.08.2024 and 19.08.2024 and quash the same as illegal.
1/18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/07/2025 04:02:24 pm )
W.P(MD)No.20157 of 2024
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Mahaboob Athiff
For Respondent : Mr.P.Thilak Kumar
Government Pleader
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.)
The writ on hand has been instituted challenging the lock and
seal notice issued under Section 56 of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country
Planning Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act, 1971”).
2.The authorities competent conducted an inspection and
identified unauthorized constructions carried out by the petitioner.
Consequently, enforcement actions were initiated under the Act. A lock and
seal notice was issued, providing further opportunity to the petitioner to
respond. The petitioner has challenged the said notice mainly on the ground
that a retention application has been filed under Section 56(3) read with
Section 56(4)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971.
Therefore, the petitioner contends that an opportunity to regularize the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/07/2025 04:02:24 pm )
unauthorized constructions should be granted and hence the present Writ
Petition is to be considered.
3.The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent
would oppose the petition by stating that, as of now, there exists no legal
provision to regularize unauthorized constructions. Courts have consistently
held that illegal constructions cannot be regularized. Enforcement action was
duly initiated and the lock and seal notice was issued. On account of the
pendency of the Writ Petition, further actions were stopped by the
authorities.
4.The learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondent
further submitted that the construction has been identified as unauthorized.
Therefore, the authorities are duty-bound to initiate enforcement action and
demolish the unauthorized constructions. In order to provide an opportunity
to the petitioner, a notice was issued to him calling for demolition of the
building. Since he did not respond to the same, a lock and seal notice was
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/07/2025 04:02:24 pm )
issued to facilitate enforcement. In view of the interim order granted in the
present Writ Petition, further enforcement actions have been stopped.
5.Issues relating to unauthorized constructions and the
consequent enforcement actions under the relevant Act and Rules is no
longer res integra. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in unequivocal
terms reiterated that Courts cannot encourage such illegal or unauthorized
constructions or deviations, which must be dealt with sternly by the
authorities in the public interest.
6.The first Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case
of Rajendra Kumar Barjatya and another Vs. U.P.Avas Evam Vikas
Parishad and others reported in 2024 INSC 990, a Judgment in realm has
been issued wherein several directions were issued by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court as under:
“20.In the ultimate analysis, we are of the opinion
that construction(s) put up in violation of or deviation from the
building plan approved by the local authority and the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/07/2025 04:02:24 pm )
constructions which are audaciously put up without any building
planning approval, cannot be encouraged. Each and every
construction must be made scrupulously following and strictly
adhering to the Rules. In the event of any violation being
brought to the notice of the Courts, it has to be curtailed with
iron hands and any lenience afforded to them would amount to
showing misplaced sympathy. Delay in directing rectification of
illegalities, administrative failure, regulatory inefficiency, cost of
construction and investment, negligence and laxity on the part of
the authorities concerned in performing their obligation(s)
under the Act, cannot be used as a shield to defend action taken
against the illegal/unauthorized constructions. That apart, the
State Governments often seek to enrich themselves through the
process of regularisation by condoning/ratifying the violations
and illegalities. The State is unmindful that this gain is
insignificant compared to the long-term damage it causes to the
orderly urban development and irreversible adverse impact on
the environment. Hence, regularization schemes must be brought
out only in exceptional circumstances and as a onetime measure
for residential houses after a detailed survey and considering
the nature of land, fertility, usage, impact on the environment,
availability and distribution of resources, proximity to water
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/07/2025 04:02:24 pm )
bodies/rivers and larger public interest. Unauthorised
constructions, apart from posing a threat to the life of the
occupants and the citizens living nearby, also have an effect on
resources like electricity, ground water and access to roads,
which are primarily designed to be made available in orderly
development and authorized activities. Master plan or the zonal
development cannot be just individual centric but also must be
devised keeping in mind the larger interest of the public and the
environment. Unless the administration is streamlined and the
persons entrusted with the implementation of the act are held
accountable for their failure in performing statutory obligations,
violations of this nature would go unchecked and become more
rampant. If the officials are let scot-free, they will be
emboldened and would continue to turn a nelson’s eye to all the
illegalities resulting in derailment of all planned projects and
pollution, disorderly traffic, security risks, etc.
21. Therefore, in the larger public interest, we are
inclined to issue the following directions, in addition to the
directives issued by this Court in Re: Directions in the matter of
demolition of structures (supra):
(i) While issuing the building planning permission, an
undertaking be obtained from the builder/applicant, as the case
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/07/2025 04:02:24 pm )
may be, to the effect that possession of the building will be
entrusted and/or handed over to the owners/beneficiaries only
after obtaining completion/occupation certificate from the
authorities concerned.
(ii) The builder/developer/owner shall cause to be
displayed at the construction site, a copy of the approved plan
during the entire period of construction and the authorities
concerned shall inspect the premises periodically and maintain
a record of such inspection in their official records.
(iii) Upon conducting personal inspection and being
satisfied that the building is constructed in accordance with the
building planning permission given and there is no deviation in
such construction in any manner, the completion/occupation
certificate in respect of residential / commercial building, be
issued by the authority concerned to the parties concerned,
without causing undue delay. If any deviation is noticed, action
must be taken in accordance with the Act and the process of
issuance of completion/occupation certificate should be
deferred, unless and until the deviations pointed out are
completely rectified.
(iv) All the necessary service connections, such as,
Electricity, water supply, sewerage connection, etc., shall be
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/07/2025 04:02:24 pm )
given by the service provider / Board to the buildings only after
the production of the completion/occupation certificate.
(v) Even after issuance of completion certificate, deviation
/ violation if any contrary to the planning permission brought to
the notice of the authority immediate steps be taken by the said
authority concerned, in accordance with law, against the builder
/ owner / occupant; and the official, who is responsible for
issuance of wrongful completion /occupation certificate shall be
proceeded departmentally forthwith.
(vi) No permission /licence to conduct any business/trade
must be given by any authorities including local bodies of
States/Union Territories in any unauthorized building
irrespective of it being residential or commercial building.
(vii) The development must be in conformity with the zonal
plan and usage. Any modification to such zonal plan and usage
must be taken by strictly following the rules in place and in
consideration of the larger public interest and the impact on the
environment.
(viii) Whenever any request is made by the respective
authority under the planning department/local body for co-
operation from another department to take action against any
unauthorized construction, the latter shall render immediate
assistance and co-operation and any delay or dereliction would
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/07/2025 04:02:24 pm )
be viewed seriously. The States/UT must also take disciplinary
action against the erring officials once it is brought to their
knowledge.
(ix) In the event of any application / appeal / revision
being filed by the owner or builder against the non-issuance of
completion certificate or for regularisation of unauthorised
construction or rectification of deviation etc., the same shall be
disposed of by the authority concerned, including the pending
appeals / revisions, as expeditiously as possible, in any event not
later than 90 days as statutorily provided.
(x) If the authorities strictly adhere to the earlier
directions issued by this court and those being passed today,
they would have deterrent effect and the quantum of litigation
before the Tribunal / Courts relating to house / building
constructions would come down drastically. Hence, necessary
instructions should be issued by all the State/UT Governments in
the form of Circular to all concerned with a warning that all
directions must be scrupulously followed and failure to do so
will be viewed seriously, with departmental action being
initiated against the erring officials as per law.
(xi) Banks / financial institutions shall sanction loan
against any building as a security only after verifying the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/07/2025 04:02:24 pm )
completion/occupation certificate issued to a building on
production of the same by the parties concerned.
(xii) The violation of any of the directions would lead to
initiation of contempt proceedings in addition to the prosecution
under the respective laws.”
7.In continuation of the Judgment cited supra, the very same
Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reiterated the said principles in
the case of Kaniz Ahmed Vs. Sabuddin and others reported in 2025 INSC
610. In the said Judgment, the Supreme Court again reminded High Courts
not to encourage illegal constructions or grant judicial regularization for
buildings constructed without requisite permissions from the competent
authorities in accordance with the Rules. Paragraph 7 of the said Judgment
reads as under:
“7. Thus, the Courts must adopt a strict approach
while dealing with cases of illegal construction and should
not readily engage themselves in judicial regularisation of
buildings erected without requisite permissions of the
competent authority. The need for maintaining such a firm
stance emanates not only from inviolable duty cast upon
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/07/2025 04:02:24 pm )
the Courts to uphold the rule of law, rather such judicial
restraint gains more force in order to facilitate the well-
being of all concerned. The law ought not to come to
rescue of those who flout its rigours as allowing the same
might result in flourishing the culture of impunity. Put
otherwise, if the law were to protect the ones who
endeavour to disregard it, the same would lead to
undermine the deterrent effect of laws, which is the
cornerstone of a just and orderly society.[See: Ashok
Malhotra v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, W.P. (c) No.
10233 of 2024 (Delhi High Court)]”.
8.With reference to the ground raised by the petitioner, lock and
seal notice issued under Section 56 of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country
Planning Act, 1971 is susceptible to revision under Section 80-A of the
Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971, which is to be decided
by the Government after providing an opportunity to the concerned parties.
9.As far as the retention application filed by the petitioner under
Section 56(3) of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/07/2025 04:02:24 pm )
concerned, the said application is based on an erroneous interpretation of the
scope and intent of Section 56 of the Act, 1971.
10.Section 49 of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning
Act, 1971, deals with application for permission. Such an application must
be filed before commencement of the building construction. Therefore, mere
submission of an application would not be sufficient for the purpose of
commencement of building construction. Only after receiving proper
building plan permission from the competent authority in accordance with
the provisions of the Act, the building activities must be commenced.
11.The authorities are bound to conduct inspections after
granting building plan permission. The field authorities are bound to monitor
the construction activities so as to ensure that the constructions are made in
consonance with the building plan permission granted by the authorities. In
the event of any violation, enforcement actions are to be initiated under the
provisions of the relevant Act and Rules.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/07/2025 04:02:24 pm )
12.Section 54 of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning
Act, 1971, contemplates power of revocation and modification of permission
to development. Section 56 of the Act, 1971, provides power to require
removal of unauthorized development. Therefore, in the event of identifying
unauthorized development/construction, authorities are bound to initiate
enforcement action under Section 56 of the Act, 1971. Sub-Section (2-A) of
Section 56 of the Act, 1971 would denote that if the owner or occupier, as
the case may be, of land or building has not discontinued, the use of such
land or building as required in the notice served under sub-Section (1),
within the time specified therein, the appropriate planning authority if prima
facie satisfied, may take action to discontinue the use of such land or
building by locking and sealing the premises in such manner as may be
prescribed irrespective of pendency of any application under Section 49 or
appeal under Section 79 or any litigation before a Court. The owner or
occupier, as the case may be, of such land or building shall provide security
for such sealed premises.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/07/2025 04:02:24 pm )
13.The very object of sub-Section (2-A) to Section 56 of the Act,
1971, is to execute the enforcement actions initiated against
illegal/unauthorized constructions under Section 56 of the Tamil Nadu Town
and Country Planning Act, 1971. Therefore, the scope of sub-Section (2-A)
to Section 56 of the Act, 1971 cannot be expanded beyond the enforcement
actions to be initiated. Sub-Section (3) to Section 56 of the Act, 1971,
enumerates that any person aggrieved by such notice may, within the period
specified in the notice and in the manner prescribed, apply for permission
under Section 49 for the retention of the land, or any buildings or works or
for the continuance of any use of the land or building to which the notice
relates.
14.In this regard, sub-Section (3) to Section 56 of the Act, 1971
must be read holistically and in continuation of Section 56 (1)(2) and (2-A)
of the Act, 1971. Sub-Section (3) to Section 56 of the Act, 1971 cannot be
read in isolation so as to understand that an application for retention must be
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/07/2025 04:02:24 pm )
for the purpose of retaining the unauthorized constructions. During the
course of enforcement actions, the authorities may accord permission for
retention of the continuance of any use of the land or building to which the
notice relates, enabling the occupier to remove belongings or correct the
deviation, as the case may be. It is only an interim measure enabling the
occupier of the unauthorized construction to continue the usage of the
building till such time, the enforcement actions are completed. However, the
scope of sub-Section (3) to Section 56 of the Act, 1971 cannot be expanded
for the purpose of regularizing the unauthorized/illegal constructions already
made. Therefore, a retention application cannot be misinterpreted as if such
application would provide scope for regularization of unauthorized
constructions.
15.In the present case, the writ petition has been instituted
challenging the lock and seal notice. Therefore, the petitioner is at liberty to
prefer a revision before the Government under Section 80-A of the Tamil
Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971. However, mere filing or
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/07/2025 04:02:24 pm )
pendency of revision petition is not a bar for completing the enforcement
action by the authorities, unless the Government grant an interim order
under sub-Section (3) to Section 80-A of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country
Planning Act, 1971.
16.With the above observations, this Writ Petition is dismissed.
No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
[S.M.S.,J.] & [S.S.Y.,J.]
15.07.2025
(1/2)
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes
ps
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/07/2025 04:02:24 pm )
To
The Executive Officer,
Vadipatti Town Panchayat,
Vadipatti,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/07/2025 04:02:24 pm )
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
and
S.SRIMATHY, J.
ps
ORDER MADE IN
DATED : 15.07.2025
(1/2)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/07/2025 04:02:24 pm )
