WP/36850/2026 of MRS.K.UMA Vs GOVERNMENT OF TAMILNADU on 10 September 2026

ORDER

(ORDER OF THE COURT WAS MADE BY DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN,J.) The writ petition is filed challenging the order in the revision petition preferred by the petitioner herein, in respect of the notice issued for the lock and seal and demolition of an unauthorised construction in the Coastal Regulations Zone-II (CRZ-II), falling within the restrictions of the Tamil Nadu Combined Development and Building Rules, 2019 (TNCDBR, 2019).

2. The petitioner herein is one of the owners of the building in Neelankarai, falling within the restricted zone for construction, as per the Notification issued by the Ministry of Environment and Forests and the Tamil Nadu Combined Development and Building Rules, 2019. As far as the petitioner’s building is concerned, the construction of the ground plus first floor and part of residential building is on the land measuring 720 sq.ft. (66.90 sq.m.).The building is an unapproved construction and no patta was issued for the subject property. Therefore, the challenge to the de-occupation/demolition notice issued by way of the revision petition was considered by the second respondent and dismissed, stating reasons.

3. Paragraph No.7 of the impugned order reads as below:- “7. In respect of the above revision petition, the following are observed:-

(i) The property under reference is classified as CRZ-III by the Ministry of Environment and Forests and the same is incorporated in the Land Use Map of Neelangarai village in Second Master Plan for Chennai Metropolitan Area. However, subsequently the classification has been changed from CRZ-III to CRZ-II wherein buildings shall be permitted on the landward side of the existing road or on the landward side of the existing authorized structures in the area within a distance of 500m from High Tide Line (HTL).

(ii) As per the inspection report furnished by the Greater Chennai Corporation, the revision petitioner's entire building is an unauthorized construction which lies at a distance of about 316 metre from Bay of Bengal and a public road (Singaravelar 3rd Main Road) is existing in between the petitioner's subject property and the Bay of Bengal.

(iii) During the personal hearing, the revision petitioner has informed that there is no patta for the subject property and that the property has been allotted to one Thiru.Gopi by the Neelankarai village panchayat members (ePyh';fiu fpuhk gQ;rhaj;jhh;) who in turn through his power agent Thiru.M.Bakthavatchalam has sold out the subject property to the wife of the revision petitioner Tmt.Uma in sale deed DOC.No.650/1994, dated 18.01.1994.

(iv) The site under reference lies in Aquifer Recharge Area (ARA) as per the Second Master Plan for Chennai Metropolitan Area. As per Tamil Nadu Combined Development and Building Rules, 2019 Annexure-XVII, Appendix-A(5)(i), the minimum required plot extent prescribed for developments in Aquifer Recharge Area is 80 Sq.m in Natham / declared EWS areas / EWS plots and 220 Sq.m in other areas. However, the plot extent of the subject property is 66.90 Sq.m only.”

4. We are duty-bound to record that the impugned order was issued by the second respondent only after a long delay and on prompting by this Court in a batch of writ petitions in W.P.No.29772 of 2002 etc.., issued directions when found inordinate delay in removal of illegal construction and disposing Revision Petitions filed by violators of CRZ Regulation and Building Rules. Further, in the writ petitions filed for removal of unauthorised constructions along ECR, this Court by order dated 12.02.2026 in W.P.No.29772 of 2002 and etc., batch issued the below directions: “We are given to understand that there are 798 properties on East Coast Road (Neelangarai, Injambakkam, Sholinganallur and Uthandi) and where violations/deviations in constructions have been detected. 440 out of 798 notices had filed either appeals or revisions and 84 appeals are stated to have been disposed as on date.

2. Since the appeal/revision petitions were heard sometime in the month of October, 2024 and the officer who had heard the appeals/revisions has since retired without passing orders thereupon, the present officer in that charge, being Dr.S.Kanchanamala, Chief Planner (Road Transport), Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority on deputation as Additional Secretary (Technical) in Housing and Urban Development Department will hear the petitioners in this batch of writ petitions who have filed appeals/revisions, on any date between 23rd February 2026 and 30th of March 2026, as they may choose to appear, between 10.30 a.m., and 5.30 p.m., on any working day

3. This order shall be construed to be notice of hearing for those petitioners who have filed appeals/revision petitions that are pending, and no notice need be issued afresh to them. This direction is in the interests of an early disposal of the matters and since the petitioners are all represented by learned counsel before us. Since this order is dictated in the Court, it is expected that the learned counsel will communicate the contents of this order to their clients for compliance.

4. The parties/authorised representatives will be granted audience, heard and their appeal/revision petitions will be disposed, in accordance with law, by way of speaking, reasoned orders. If they do not so appear, the authority is at liberty to pass orders on the revision applications or appeals, in accordance with law, based on the petition and the materials available on record.

5. As on date, there are 9 writ petitioners and 221 impleaded petitioners. By an order dated 27.07.2018, the Division Bench has put a freeze on impleadment of parties. We have also verified with the Registry and have received confirmation that there are no impleading petitions pending in any of the writ petitions. Hence, the direction at paragraph 2 of this order will apply only to the 9 writ petitioners and 221 impleaded petitioners, who have approached the authorities with either appeal or revision petitions.

6. As regards the remaining noticees, fresh notices will be issued by the Appellate/Revisional authority calling upon them to appear for personal hearing. They shall be heard and orders passed expeditiously and within the time frame indicated in this order.

7. The entirety of the exercise as above shall be completed by the 31st of May 2026. The authority will hear the parties, consider all materials placed before her and pass detailed orders in accordance with law, without the appeal being an empty formality.

8. Till the completion of this exercise, the present officer may be retained in the post to enable her to complete the process. We are constrained to state this, as the petitioners are aggrieved by the fact that the erstwhile appellate/revisional authority, Mr.C.S.Murugan, who heard 440 appeals from October to December 2024 had demitted office in January 2025 without having disposed the same.

9. As far as W.P.No.20241 of 2020 is concerned, we had passed an order on 05.02.2026 directing a hearing on 11.02.2026 and orders to be passed by 23.03.2026. A mention was made in advance by the learned Government Advocate, to state that the matter could be taken up with batch and for that reason we do not issue a contempt notice for non- compliance with the direction under order dated 05.02.2026. We clarify that the directions in the paragraphs supra shall apply to the petitioners in W.P.No.20241 of 2020 as well.

10. Since there is no clarity on how many of the present petitioners/impleading petitioners have actually approached the revision authority/appellate authority, let an affidavit be filed by each petitioner confirming whether an appeal/revision has been filed and if so, the date of filing of the appeal, within one week of uploading of this order

11. Noticees, who have neither filed revision petition nor appeals, are liable to be proceeded with in accordance with law, forthwith.”

5. In this case, the construction of the petitioners is without permission on the land, without patta and without any valid approval from the authority. In addition, the construction falls short of the minimum extent prescribed for permissible construction under the Aquifer Recharge Area (ARA) under the Tamil Nadu Combined Development and Building Rules, 2019. Though it is contended that the building was constructed prior to the Tamil Nadu Combined Development and Building Rules, which saves all actions taken under the existing Rules, even we go by the old Rule, the minimum extent prescribed for the building in an Aquifer Area was above 220 sq.m. Therefore, on all fours, the impugned order stands unassailable.

6. Hence, this Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. (Dr.G.JAYACHANDRAN,J.) (E.MANOHARAN,J.) 10.09.2026 ari Index:yes/no Neutral citation:yes/no To

1. The Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu, Housing and Urban Development Department, Secretariat, Fort St.George, Chennai 600 009.

2. Additional Secretary(Technical) Housing and Urban Development Department, Secretariat, Fort St.George, Chennai 600009.

3. Greater Chennai Corporation, Rep.by its Commissioner, Chennai 600 003.

4. The Executive Engineer, Zone-15, Greater Chennai Corporation, No.120, Rajiv Gandhi Salai (OMR), Sholinganallur, Chennai 600 119.

Dr.G. JAYACHANDRAN,J. AND E.MANOHARAN,J. ari Writ Petition No.36850 of 2026 and W.M.P.Nos.41315, 41320 and 41321 of 2026 10.09.2026