[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Madras High Court
K.Savithri vs The Commissioner on 29 April, 2026
W.P.No.17369 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 29.04.2026
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI,
CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN
W.P.No.17369 of 2026
and W.M.P.No.18645 of 2026
K.Savithri
W/o.G.Karunakaran
No.84, Arimuthu Maistry Street,
Choolai, Chennai- 600 112.
Petitioner
Vs
1.The Commissioner
Greater Chennai Corporation,
Ripon Building, Chennai-600 003
2.The Regional Deputy Commissioner (Central),
Greater Chennai Corporation
No.36B, 2nd Cross Street
Pulla Avenue, Shenoy Nagar
Chennai-600 030
3.The Zonal Officer
Zone VI,
Greater Chennai Corporation
No.158, Strahans Road,
Thiru-Vi-Ka.Nagar,
Chennai-600 012
______________
Page 1 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.17369 of 2026
4.The Executive Engineer
Zone VI,
Greater Chennai Corporation
No.158, Strahans Road,
Thiru-Vi-Ka-Nagar,
Chennai-600 012
5.The Assistant Executive Engineer
Unit 17, Zone VI,
Greater Chennai Corporation,
No.158, Strahans Road,
Pattalam, Chennai-600 012
6.The Assistant Engineer,
Division 78, Unit 17, Zone VI,
No.158, Strahans Road,
Thiru-Vi-Ka Nagar,
Chennai-600 012.
7.D.Prakash Chand
No.5,Kulandi Gramani Street,
Purasaiwalkam,
Chennai-600 084
Respondent(s)
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
seeking issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the
records relating to the impugned proceedings of the 3rd respondent in
Notice No.APP/III/N06/N078/00004/2026 dated 21.01.2026 and quash
the same, and consequently direct the respondents not to take any
coercive action against the petitioner’s property.
For Petitioner(s): Mr.Umashankar
for Mr.AS.Shyam Ganesh
For Respondent(s):Mr.E.C.Ramesh
Standing Counsel
for R1 to R6
______________
Page 2 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.17369 of 2026
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by the Hon'ble Chief Justice)
This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
has been filed by the petitioner to quash the impugned proceedings of
the third respondent dated 21.1.2026 and consequently to direct the
respondents not to take any coercive action against the petitioner’s
property.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
petitioner is the owner of the property in question and she had some
financial transaction with the seventh respondent, for which, the
petitioner had executed a simple mortgage deed in favour of the
seventh respondent. Taking advantage of the general power of
attorney, which was executed by fraudulent means, the seventh
respondent is attempting to interfere with the petitioner’s peaceful
possession by initiating multiple proceedings, including a civil suit.
Only under the instigation of the seventh respondent, the third
respondent has issued the impugned notice. He would submit that a
portion measuring 39.32 sq.m was already demolished in compliance
with the earlier directions, which was also verified by the Corporation
______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
authorities. However, the impugned notice has been issued without
any basis.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that no
inspection was conducted in the presence of the petitioner and no
opportunity of hearing was given. The impugned notice is vague and
it does not specify the alleged deviations. Since the respondent
authorities are now attempting to take coercive action, including lock
and seal, without issuing mandatory statutory notice in Form VII
thereby depriving the petitioner’s statutory remedy under Section 80
of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971, the petitioner
has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition.
4. On a perusal of the records, it is seen that before issuance of
the impugned notice, on 11.11.2025, the fifth respondent issued
notice to the petitioner bringing to her notice that the construction is
without obtaining due planning permission or in deviation of the
permission granted. Therefore, she was requested to produce the
planning permission, building permission and approved plan issued by
the competent authority within 7 days. Faced with the said notice, on
12.11.2025, the petitioner had submitted RTI application requesting
______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
details regarding the planning permission, building permission and
plan approval of the property in question. On 13.11.2025, the
petitioner has sent a letter to the respondent authorities stating that
the original documents are currently in the possession of the seventh
respondent and, therefore, the proceedings may be kept in abeyance.
On 12.12.2025, the fifth respondent issued notice to the petitioner
informing that the building/land in question will be inspected on
15.12.2025 and thereafter, issued the impugned notice calling upon
the petitioner to restore the building to its condition before the said
development took place within 30 days from the date of receipt of the
notice.
5. The contention of the petitioner that the impugned notice was
issued without conducting the proper inspection or affording an
opportunity of hearing cannot be countenanced. The petitioner has
failed to produce any shred of material to substantiate her claim. All
that the respondent authorities want is production of planning
permission by the petitioner to show that the building is constructed as
per the plan. Since the petitioner has failed to submit the documents
which were called for under notice dated 11.11.2025, the third
respondent has issued the impugned notice dated 21.1.2026 calling
______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
upon the petitioner to restore the building to its condition before the
said development took place. We find nothing wrong in issuing the
impugned notice.
6. When this Court asked learned counsel for the petitioner to
produce the planning permission before the authority, learned counsel
replied that all the documents are with the seventh respondent and
she had applied for copies of the documents through RTI application
and she is yet to receive the same. He would further submit that let
the authorities issue fresh notice.
7. Admittedly, pursuant to the impugned notice, the petitioner
has not submitted any reply to the third respondent. More than three
months passed from the date of issuance of the impugned notice and
the petitioner has filed the present writ petition only on 22.4.2026
stating that on 21.4.2026, two officials from the Chennai Corporation
came to the property and asked the petitioner to vacate the premises
before 27.4.2026 stating that they proposed to lock and seal the
premises on 27.4.2026.
______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
8. As stated supra, the impugned notice is only for removal of
the unauthorised development carried out without planning permission
in the property in question within the time stipulated therein. Since
the petitioner has failed to produce any planning permission to show
that the construction is as per the plan, we are of the view that there
is no illegality in issuing the impugned notice. It is the duty of the
petitioner to restore the building to its condition before the said
development took place. Further, the motive behind issuance of the
impugned notice as canvassed by the petitioner is also without any
materials. There are no valid grounds to entertain the writ petition.
9. The writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to
costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
(SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI,CJ) (G.ARUL MURUGAN,J)
29.04.2026
Index : Yes/No
Neutral Citation : Yes/No
sasi
______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To:
1.The Commissioner
Greater Chennai Corporation,
Ripon Building, Chennai-600 003
2.The Regional Deputy Commissioner (Central),
Greater Chennai Corporation
No.36B, 2nd Cross Street
Pulla Avenue, Shenoy Nagar
Chennai-600 030
3.The Zonal Officer
Zone VI,
Greater Chennai Corporation
No.158, Strahans Road,
Thiru-Vi-Ka.Nagar,
Chennai-600 012
4.The Executive Engineer
Zone VI,
Greater Chennai Corporation
No.158, Strahans Road,
Thiru-Vi-Ka-Nagar,
Chennai-600 012
5.The Assistant Executive Engineer
Unit 17, Zone VI,
Greater Chennai Corporation,
No.158, Strahans Road,
Pattalam, Chennai-600 012
6.The Assistant Engineer,
Division 78, Unit 17, Zone VI,
No.158, Strahans Road,
Thiru-Vi-Ka Nagar,
Chennai-600 012.
______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
G.ARUL MURUGAN,J.
(sasi)
29.04.2026
______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
