WP/42044/2026 of MR.V.KUMAR Vs THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU on 13 October 2026

ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by S.M.Subramaniam, J.) Writ of Mandamus has been instituted to direct the respondents 1 to 4 to declare the area in Neela Mela Street, Nagapattinam Town and District as “Continuous Building Area” and consequently restraining the respondents 2 to 4 from demolishing petitioner's building constructed in Old Door No.27/1, New No.48, Neela Mela Street at Nagapattinam Town and District.

2. The petitioner states that he purchased an extent of 1580 sq.ft. of house site with old building thereon comprised in Town Survey No.249, New Sub-Division 1249/1, Block No.15, Ward No.3 of Nagapattinam Municipality. The property is one of the buildings in the row of buildings of Neela Mela Street in western row. The petitioner obtained building plan permission from the competent authority, granted vide order dated 18.08.2022. He constructed the building. The authorities during inspection found that unauthorised constructions and deviations are made in violation of the building plan approval granted by the Municipality. Thus, the second respondent Municipality issued a notice on 07.09.2022 under Sections 216(1) and (2), 205(1) and (2) of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, 1920. Thereafter, a lock and seal notice was issued. Enforcement actions were initiated in pursuance of the Writ Petition filed by a neighbour, namely, Mr.R.Karthikeyan, in W.P.No.9523 of 2024. This Court passed an order on 19.06.2025 directing the second respondent to conduct an enquiry and initiate appropriate action. Since lock and seal notice came to be issued, the petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 80-A of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act. Admittedly, the said appeal was dismissed on 06.01.2026. Challenging the said order, the petitioner filed W.P.No.18323 of 2026 and the writ petition also was dismissed on 29.06.2026. The authorities initiated action for demolition of unauthorised constructions and deviations. At that juncture, the present writ petition is filed seeking a direction to declare the entire street as “Continuous Building Area”.

3. The learned Senior Counsel Mr.Srinivas would mainly contend that near about 70 houses are in existence for more than 60–70 years. Therefore, the entire street is to be declared as a “Continuous Building Area” under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Combined Development and Building Rules, 2019. The case of the petitioner alone was isolated on account of the writ petition filed by a neighbour. All other constructions are made in violation of the building plan permission granted. Admitting the fact that the earlier round of litigation failed and demolition ordered by the Municipality was confirmed by the Court, the learned Senior Counsel would submit that not only the case of the petitioner, the entire street is to be declared as a “Continuous Building Area” and in such case, the building constructed by the petitioner also will be saved. He would rely on the order of the learned Single Judge of the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court in the case of K.Raman and others vs. The Assistant Commissioner, K.Abishekapuram Division, Trichy Municipal Corporation, Trichy and others in W.P.(MD).No.19522 of 2021 dated 24.06.2022. He further relied on the order passed by the Division Bench in the case of V.S. Trust vs. The State of Tamil Nadu and others in W.P.(MD).No.9627 of 2022, dated 05.02.2026.

4. The learned Standing Counsel for the Municipality Mr.P.Srinivas would strenuously oppose by stating that no street in Nagapattinam Town has been declared as “Continuous Building Area”. It is for the competent authority with the permission of the Director of Town and Country Planning or the Government to declare a particular street as “Continuous Building Area”. In the present case, no such declaration has been made under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Combined Development and Building Rules. The petitioner obtained a building plan permission by marking setback area. While constructing the building, he has violated the building plan permission which resulted in issuance of notice under the relevant provisions of the Act. Once the building plan has been approved by the competent authority, the petitioner is bound by the same and the construction to be made must be in consonance with the approved plan. The procedures for demolition of unauthorised constructions were scrupulously followed. The petitioner exhausted the remedy at every stage and finally, the writ petition filed by him was also dismissed by this Court. The Government elaborately passed an order under Section 80-A of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act rejecting the claim of the petitioner. Under these circumstances, the present writ petition deserves no merit consideration.

5. This Court has considered the rival submissions made between the parties to the lis. Rule 30 of the Tamil Nadu Combined Development and Building Rules, 2019, speaks about area of special character and reads as under: “30.Area of special character:- (1) Continuous Building Areas (CBA)-Buildings without side set back are permissible in a plot or site in continuous building areas set apart in the approved

Master Plan or Detailed Development Plan or in the other areas as may be declared by the local body as CBA with the approval of the Directorate of Town and Country Planning or Government as the case may be from time to time. However in an approved layout area only in the plots classified for Continuous type of buildings it is permissible.”

6. In the context of the above Rule, buildings without side setback are permissible in a plot or site if it is declared by the local body as “Continuous Building Area” with the approval of the Directorate of Town and Country Planning or the Government, as the case may be, from time to time. The Rule further contemplates that in an approved layout area only in the plots classified for continuous type of building, it is permissible. Therefore, a declaration under Rule 30 of the Tamil Nadu Combined Development and Building Rules, 2019, is mandatory and after such declaration by the competent authority, a building plan permission is to be obtained for construction of building in the “Continuous Building Area”. In such circumstances alone, the plan will be approved for construction of building without side setback. In the absence of any such declaration and building plan approval based on the declaration under Rule 30 of the Tamil Nadu Combined Development and Building Rules, no person can put up any construction in violation of the building plan approval obtained with setback area. In the present case, the petitioner has already obtained building plan permission citing setback areas and thereafter committed violation. The authorities have initiated action and the petitioner exhausted the remedies available under the Act and the writ petition filed finally also came to be dismissed. Under these circumstances, the petitioner cannot turn around and claim that the entire street is to be declared as “Continuous Building Area”.

7. The present writ petition seeking a declaration cannot be considered by this Court. High Court in exercise of the powers of judicial review cannot issue any direction to declare a street as “Continuous Building Area” under Rule 30 of the Tamil Nadu Combined Development and Building Rules. It is for the competent authority to make all necessary assessments and thereafter, declare a particular area as “Continuous Building Area”. The directions of this nature would fall beyond the realm of the powers of judicial review.

8. Whether certain buildings in a street or road is to be declared as a “Continuous Building Area” is the policy decision to be taken by the competent authority in the context of the rules and after making all necessary assessments. If it is made as a routine affair, it will affect the developmental activity and planning by the local body and the Government in a particular area. These kind of declarations are relatable to developmental activities which is to be done by the competent authority after making a proper assessment and necessity to make such declaration.

9. Rule 30 is a special provision and therefore, the power is to be exercised cautiously and discreetly so as to ensure that the developmental activities in that particular area are not affected. Court issuing a direction based on a grievance of one person would undoubtedly result in larger repercussions and therefore, the High Court in such matters are expected to exercise restraint in issuing directions.

10. In respect of the order passed by the learned Single Judge, it cannot be construed as a common declaration and even for issuing a direction to consider, a person approaching the Court has to establish his right. Routine issuance of direction to dispose of the representation or consider the same would do no service to the cause of justice. Therefore, those orders need not be followed as a precedent but is to be confined only to the facts of the said case. That apart, the scope of Rule 30 cannot be expanded by issuing a direction by the High Court in exercise of the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India so as to declare a particular street as a “Continuous Building Area” which would result in causing prejudice to the interest of developmental activities through master plan or any other schemes. These all are the administrative functions of the Government and High Court is not expected to interfere with such routine functions of the Government which is to be done through domain expert. To declare a particular street as a “Continuous Building Area” requires a report from experts and such deliberations are to be made at the Government level and this being the scope of the special provision under Rule 30 of the Tamil Nadu Combined Development and Building Rules, the writ petition filed seeking a direction to declare a street as a “Continuous Building Area” is not entertainable. It is for the Government to take a decision and that being the legal position, the present writ petition filed in another form to save the building unauthorisedly constructed by the petitioner cannot be entertained. The authorities have already initiated enforcement action for demolition of unauthorised constructions. Since the petitioner has exhausted the statutory remedies and the writ petition filed by him was also dismissed.

11. In view of the above facts and circumstances, this Court does not find any acceptable reason for entertaining the writ petition and consequently the Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs. Connected Miscellaneous Petition is also closed (S.M.S.,J.) (R.R.V.,J.) 13-10-2026 Index: Yes Speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes cse

To

1. The Principal Secretary to Government, State of Tamil Nadu, Housing and Urban Development Department, Fort St. George, Chennai – 600009.

2. The Nagapattinam Municipality, Rep, by its Commissioner, Nagapattinam - 611001.

3. The Member Secretary / President, Local Planning Authority, Nagapattinam - 611001.

4. The Directorate of Town And Country Planning, Koyambedu, Chennai - 600107.

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J. AND R.RAJESH VIVEKANANTHAN, J. cse WP.No.42044 of 2026 13-10-2026