WP/36514/2026 of Thiru. D.Suresh Kumar Vs THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU on 9 September 2026

ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by Dr.G.Jayachandran J.) The petitioner herein, being aggrieved by the lock and seal and demolition notice issued by the 3rd respondent in view of gross violations of the Tamil Nadu Combined Development and Building Rules, 2019 and the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971, is before this Court seeking to quash the proceedings of the 1st respondent dated 27.07.2026. Since the impugned order is explanatory narrating the sequence of events and orders passed by this Court in the connected writ petitions, the relevant portion of the impugned order is scanned and given below:

( Uploaded on: 22/09/2026 06:15:00 pm )

( Uploaded on: 22/09/2026 06:15:00 pm )

( Uploaded on: 22/09/2026 06:15:00 pm )

( Uploaded on: 22/09/2026 06:15:00 pm )

2. In an identical case filed by Tmt.Manjula Lakshman and Gokul.L in W.P.No.36121 of 2026, who is the neighbouring land owner of the writ petitioner, this Court, vide order dated 08.09.2026, dismissed the said writ petition. The relevant portion of the order passed in the similar facts of the case is extracted below: “8. On perusal of the impugned order of the first respondent dated 27.07.2026, we find that the writ petitioners have constructed ground plus first floor in the subject property and the building is situated at a distance of 265 meters from High Tide Line (HTL) and there is a Road between the petitioners’ property and the Bay of Bengal. Referring the orders passed by this Court in pending Writ Petitions, the first respondent has observed that the building is originally classified as CRZ-III by the Ministry of Environment and Forests and 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 500 m from High Tide Line (HTL).

( Uploaded on: 22/09/2026 06:15:00 pm )

The distance restrictions for CRZ II is 500 mts from the High Tide Line whereas the building is at a distance of about 265 meters from Bay of Bengal. Further since there is a road between the Bay of Bengal and the building construction, we have to look whether the building falls within the permitted distance limit for structures in CRZ II, in view of the existence of a road in between the building and the sea.

9. The second reason for dismissing the revision petition is that the site lies in Aquifer Recharge Area (ARA). As per the Second Master Plan of the Chennai Metropolitan Area, the minimum area for Aquifer Recharge Area prescribed is 220 sq. meters as per the Tamil Nadu Combined Development and Building Rules, 2019 whereas the subject property is in 125.40 sq. metres only. In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioners contend that the prudence of fixing 220 sq.m as a minimum area itself is questioned in the writ petition. Therefore, for the reason of holding lesser extent of land as per 2019 Rules, the building

( Uploaded on: 22/09/2026 06:15:00 pm )

which was constructed in the year 2014, should not be demolished. The learned counsel also submit that even under the Tamil Nadu Combined Development and Building Rules, 2019 for economic weaker section, the minimum extent of land is fixed as 80 sq.m and therefore, the petitioners along with four others who have purchased the larger extent of land cannot be penalised for sub dividing the land among themselves.

10. We find that the purpose of restricting regularization development in the Aquifer Recharge Area is clearly spelled out in Tamil Nadu Combined Development and Building Rules, 2019. The purpose is to realise the full benefits of recharge into this aquifer through precipitation, since this area serve as one of the major source for the city water supply. The Rule though permits restricted developmental activities such as Non High Rise building upto 9 m height with 6 dwelling units residential and commercial building and other developments can be carried on in this area and that too, only

( Uploaded on: 22/09/2026 06:15:00 pm )

with permission following the Rules regarding FSI set back and other restrictions.

11. The photographs annexed to the writ petition speaks volumes about the structure of the building constructed by the petitioners. The building stands on an unapproved lay out and in contravention to the minimum extent of land prescribed under the Rule. The building permission though claimed to have been granted is not so, since the other documents filed by the writ petitioners would show that the building approval plan was submitted only on 31.05.2026 whereas the Authorities have been consistently intimating the petitioners to remove the unauthorised structure and making attempts to remove the structure constructed contrary to law ever since their first notice issued under Section 56 and 57 in the year 2018.

12. The irregularities and illegalities of putting up construction causing damage to the nature, tantamounts causing injury to the general public, under the public trust doctrine.

( Uploaded on: 22/09/2026 06:15:00 pm )

Examining the provisions of Tamil Nadu Combined Development and Building Rules, 2019, we find that Rule 73 provides for transitory actions in respect of applications for approval filed and pending under the old Rule. Rule 74 speaks about repeal and savings, wherein Sub Rule (3) of 74 protects the action against the unauthorised and deviated constructions with reference to the earlier Development Regulation and Building Rules shall be deemed to have done or taken with reference to the corresponding provisions of the Combined Development and Building Rules and continue in force, unless the earlier Rule, superseded by anything done or any action taken.”

3. The reasoning for dismissing the writ petition filed by Manjula squarely applies to the present petitioner also, except the extent of land held by the petitioner, which is 137.50 square metres, whereas the minimum requirement is 220 squate metres, as per the Tamil Nadu Combined Development and Building Rules, 2019.

( Uploaded on: 22/09/2026 06:15:00 pm )

4. Therefore, we find no reason to entertain this writ petition. Hence, this Writ Petition stands dismissed. (Dr.G.J.,J.) (E.M.,J.) 09-09-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No rpl To

1. The Additional Secretary to Government, State of Tamil Nadu Housing and Urban Development Department, Secretariat, Chennai 09.

2. The Commissioner, Greater Chennai Corporation, Rippon Building, Chennai 03.

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

4. Under secretary to Government of India, Union of India, Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Dr. Rajendra Prasad Road, New Delhi 110 001

5. The Secretary to Government, State of Tamil Nadu, Tamil Nadu Coastal Zone Management Authority,

( Uploaded on: 22/09/2026 06:15:00 pm )

Secretariat, Chennai 09

6. Assistant Engineer (DIV-192) Zone 15, Greater Chennai Corporation, No. 120 Rajiv Gandhi Salai (OMR), Sholinganallur Chennai 119.

6. Assistant Executive Engineer (Unit 44) Zone 15, Greater Chennai Corporation, No. 120 Rajiv Gandhi Salai (OMR), Sholinganallur, Chennai 119.

( Uploaded on: 22/09/2026 06:15:00 pm )

DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN J. and E.MANOHARAN J. rpl Writ Petition No. 36514 of 2026 and W.M.P.No. 40911 of 2026 09.09.2026

( Uploaded on: 22/09/2026 06:15:00 pm )