WP/35566/2023 of V.SRINIVASAN Vs THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR on 26 October 2026

O R D E R

This writ petition is filed for a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records of the impugned proceedings of the first respondent dated 30.09.2023, quash the same and consequently direct the first respondent herein to conduct a proper inquiry among the public residing in the area and to pass fresh orders based on the petitioner's representation dated 28.11.2023.

2. The petitioner states that the second respondent Church is near the petitioner's house. Every day, between 200 and 300 people gather in the said

Church, twice or thrice. On Sundays, the number is around 1,000. The Church makes a great deal of noise, and the people living in and around it are severely affected. Under the circumstances, the people in the vicinity lodged a complaint with the Zonal Officer, Zone-III, Greater Chennai Corporation, who, after considering the issue, issued a lock and seal notice to the Church under Section 56(2) of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971.

3. The second respondent Church challenged the notice dated 22.02.2018 in W.P.No.4573 of 2018. By an order dated 16.03.2018, the authorities were directed to consider the statutory appeal filed by the Church after affording an opportunity to the Church, and it was further ordered that till the disposal of the appeal, no coercive steps shall be taken by the authorities. Ultimately, by an order dated 26.04.2022, the appellate authority disposed of the appeal filed by the second respondent Church and directed the Church to obtain the necessary planning permission under the Tamil Nadu Combined Development and Building Rules, 2019 within three months, failing which, the Greater Chennai Corporation was permitted to pursue the necessary enforcement action under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971. The said authority extended the time by another three months.

4. Even thereafter, no action was taken, and hence the petitioner filed W.P.No.18236 of 2023, praying for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 4 to demolish the illegal and unauthorised construction of the Church. By an order dated 22.06.2023, the said writ petition was disposed of, enabling the Church to carry out rectification work, with a direction that the building be kept permanently locked and sealed. The connections and amenities were to be extended only after the authorities were satisfied that the building was in accordance with the plan. Subsequently, the second respondent Church filed W.P.No.25514 of 2023, wherein this Court, by an order dated 06.11.2023, directed that the planning permission application filed by the Church be scrutinized in accordance with law and that planning permission be sanctioned. It is seen that the District Collector had given the No Objection Certificate. The petitioner was not immediately given a copy of the said report at the time of disposal of the above-mentioned writ petition. Subsequently, after obtaining the copies, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.

5. The petitioner challenges the No Objection report on the ground that its contents, as if they had inquired with the local people, are factually incorrect. The petitioner has submitted affidavits from local residents stating that the authorities never approached them. The persons mentioned in the report do not belong to the locality. All the people in the locality object to the No Objection Certificate. The entire area cannot tolerate the noise pollution. Due to the haphazard parking by the devotees of the Church, the entire area will be jammed, and there will be no free movement of traffic. Therefore, the petitioner prays that the No Objection Certificate granted by the Collector in the impugned proceedings dated 30.092023 be set aside.

6. The first respondent resists the writ petition by filing a counter affidavit, bringing to the notice of this Court the earlier orders passed in W.P. No.18236 of 2023 and W.P.No.25514 of 2023. It is submitted that the District Collector issued the No Objection Certificate in accordance with the Tamil Nadu Combined Development and Building Rules, 2019. It is stated that there is a continuous legal battle between the petitioner herein and the Church, and therefore, the writ petition is filed. The No Objection Certificate was issued after considering the report received from the Commissioner of Police, Avadi Commissionerate, with reference to the law and order and traffic.

7. The second respondent also have filed a counter affidavit. It is their case that the property measuring 7,360 sq.ft was purchased through the trust that administers the Church via a registered sale deed bearing Document

Nos.7700 & 7731 of 2001, on the file of the Sub Registrar, Sembiam. The structure was constructed in 2002. Meanwhile, the lock and seal notice was issued in 2018. The Church filed an appeal against the same, and ultimately this Court, by order dated 16.03.2018, directed the Government to consider the appeal. In the appeal, the Government directed the Church to obtain planning permission within three months. During this period, the Church applied to demolish the existing building for rectification, and permission was granted for the rectification work. On 30.03.2023, the Church applied for planning permission, and pending approval, the District Collector duly issued the present No Objection Certificate.

8. The Commissioner of Police, Avadi, also issued a No Objection Certificate on 26.07.2023. During the hearing of the earlier Writ Petition No.25514 of 2023, the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court recorded that the No Objection Certificate had been granted and that the petitioner was also a party. After that, when the detailed order was passed, planning permission was also granted. The impugned No Objection Certificate was issued after enquiring with more than 50 families. Thus, there is no illegality in the impugned No Objection Certificate.

9. Mr G.Karthikeyan, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, would submit that while the Ganesh temple, which was in the pathway, was ordered to be demolished on the representation of the second respondent Church, the Church itself was illegally established without proper planning permission. A lock and seal notice had been issued, and the writ petition was disposed of with a direction to apply for planning permission. As per the Tamil Nadu Combined Development and Building Rules, a No Objection Certificate is a step in that direction that the first respondent, the District Collector, must issue. For the said purpose, the first respondent is required to conduct a detailed enquiry in the locality, carry out a site inspection, and ascertain the grievances in this regard.

10. The learned Senior Counsel would rely upon the typed set of papers containing 26 affidavits, which were filed on 29.09.2026 by people living in the vicinity. They have all categorically stated that they were never approached and that they are all opposed to the establishment of the Church. Further, the noise pollution that will arise on account of the Church being established would be unbearable. Parking will also be haphazard, throwing traffic across the entire area out of gear. Therefore, the impugned No Objection Certificate and the consequential planning permission are liable to be set aside.

11. Mr J.Chakravarthy, learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the first respondent, would submit that the second respondent Church applied for building permission under the Tamil Nadu Combined Development and Building Rules, and, with reference to the place of worship, the District Collector had to consider and give no objection. The District Collector followed the procedure and, after obtaining reports relating to traffic and law and order and independently applying his mind, granted the No Objection Certificate, on which planning permission was also granted, and the Church is functioning peacefully.

12. Mr.B.Vijay, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the second respondent, would submit that there is personal enmity between the petitioner and the Church, as the petitioner was connected to the unauthorized temple that was put up, blocking the pathway. On a pétition by the Church, upon finding that it was an encroachment on the public road, it was removed. Therefore, only to wreak vengeance, and without any connection whatsoever, the petitioner continues to file these writ petitions. The Division Bench of this Court has considered the entire issue in detail and passed orders. The allegation relating to noise pollution is unfounded, as the Church does not use any high- decibel or cone speakers, and no noise pollution can arise from the proceedings

conducted in the Church, as the same will be heard only inside the Church and not outside. Ample parking is available for about 20 four-wheelers and more than 50 two-wheelers, and the parking is not on the road. There is no traffic jam or complaint. The petitioner's grievance is unfounded. The affidavits are all from persons interested in the petitioner.

13. I have considered the rival submissions made on either side and perused the material records of the case.

14. Firstly, with reference to locus standi, it cannot be held that the petitioner is a totally unconnected person, inasmuch as there has been an inter se dispute between the petitioner and the Church. The Church claimed to be a connected person and filed petitions with reference to the illegal Ganesh temple built in the vicinity. Similarly, persons connected with the Ganesh temple in the vicinity can also complain about violations regarding the Church. This cannot be dismissed on the ground that they are wreaking vengeance. This Court will see whether the Church is functioning as per the Development Control Rules.

15. However, this is not the first round of litigation between the parties. The parties have been engaged in protracted litigation, and in the earlier round, the Division Bench passed a detailed order in W.P.No.25514 of 2023. It can be seen that the petitioner herein was the fourth respondent in the said petition. After hearing the parties, the Division Bench recorded a finding that the Church had duly applied for a demolition plan and that permission had been granted. Thereafter, it applied for building plan approval. As per the norms, the Commissioner of Police, Avadi and the District Collector, Chennai, had issued a No Objection Certificate for the construction of the Church. Thereafter, it directed the authorities to scrutinize the planning permission and to sanction the same. It can be seen that the order was passed as early as 06.11.2023.

16. Now, the only ground of attack is that the No Objection Certificate has been issued without a proper inquiry. In this regard, when the Church is situated in an urban setting, in a densely populated area, the Collector receives a report from the appropriate authorities and, after a local enquiry, grants no objection. It cannot be from the same persons whom the petitioner may consider as living in the same locality. Innumerable persons live in the same locality, and the petitioner has obtained affidavits from 26 such persons. That by itself would not render the local enquiry conducted by the Collector redundant.

17. The grievance that is entertainable is twofold. Regarding noise pollution, an undertaking has been given that no cone speakers or loudspeakers will be used to broadcast the entire Church proceedings, and the same is recorded. As far as the parking complaint is concerned, it is submitted that the Church has ample parking space. Therefore, the jurisdictional police authorities can only periodically check whether there is any violation of parking instructions or whether there is any noise pollution beyond the permissible decibel level. Except for that, when the Church has demolished the deviation portion and reconstructed the Church in accordance with the permission and subsequently, when due planning permission is also granted, now belatedly, once again the No Objection granted by the District Collector, which is part of the process of granting planning permission, cannot be faulted. As per the statutory mandate, the District Collector has made an enquiry. I am not in a position to hold that the same is absolutely unfair or causes any hindrance to the public, so as to accept the submission now made by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and to quash the No Objection itself. The local authorities shall periodically check for violations relating to noise pollution or illegal parking.

18. Accordingly, the prayer to quash the impugned proceedings cannot be countenanced, and the Writ Petition stands disposed of with the observations made supra. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions stand closed. 26.10.2026 vji Neutral citation : No

To

1. The District Collector, 4th Floor, M.Singaravelar Maaligai, No.62, Rajaji Salai, Chennai – 600 001.

2. The Superintendent Engineer, Town Planning Department, Greater Chennai Corporation, Ripon Buildings, Chennai – 600 003.

D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J. vji Pre-Delivery Order made in W.P.No.35566 of 2023 and W.M.P.Nos.35509 & 35510 of 2022 & W.M.P.Nos.8170 & 23744 of 2024 26.10.2026