WP/36570/2026 of Rajiv Sreedhar Vs The Secretary to Government on 9 September 2026

ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by Dr.G.Jayachandran J.) The petitioner herein purchased the subject land in the year 1988, which currently falls within the Coastal Regulation Zone-II (CRZ-II) area and subsequently put up a construction thereon in the year 1989 without obtaining any permission.

2. It is to be noted that even at the time of purchase, the land is not an approved layout or meant for construction, though there was no express bar or prohibition under law on the date of purchase. However, even as on the date of the said construction, the law in force mandated that any building to be constructed must have a valid planning permission; but then, in this case, there was no such planning permission.

3. After the enactment of regulations to preserve the coastal zone and the area appurtenant to the sea, the authorities started taking action to regulate the constructions that have come up along the coastal zone, either with formal permission from the authorities or without authorization and also constructions made in deviation from the permitted plan. This action commenced as early as the year 2011.

4. Several writ petitions were filed and some are pending even now. Be that as it may, the present writ petition has been filed by the writ petitioner, who has put up a construction as stated above, being aggrieved by the order passed by the second respondent on 29.07.2026, pursuant to the revision petition filed by this petitioner on 25.02.2020.

5. As we have stated earlier, though the action for implementing the regulations started long back, due to the pendency of various writ petitions, the authorities were not able to proceed further effectively. Thus, the revision petition filed by the petitioner in the year 2020 was kept pending and only after some directions of this Court by way of Mandamus the impugned order was passed.

6. The impugned order is now challenged by the petitioner herein on two primary grounds;

* The first ground is that the petitioner constructed the subject building as early as 1989 when there was no such regulation in force and has been in continuous possession and enjoyment all these years; therefore, the impugned order for demolition issued without considering the spirit of the regulations has to be quashed.

* The second contention is that even if the rules are implemented strictly in letter and spirit, the regulations protect buildings on the landward side of an existing road or on the landward side of existing authorized structure, as per CRZ-II Zone regulations notified by the Ministry of Environment and Forest dated 06.01.2011, as amended by subsequent notification issued in the year 2018.

7. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, though the writ petitioner put up his construction without authorization in the year 1989, he has as early as 1999, made a representation to the authorities of the CMDA for regularization of the said construction under the regularization scheme. He further submitted that this application for regularization is still pending before the authorities without any final decision.

8. The impugned order passed by the second respondent is tested in the light of the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

9. To start with, the construction as it stands is without any permission. The regularization application alleged to have been given on 25.09.1999, 27 years ago, has not been considered till date. Meanwhile, various regulations and the the Town and Country Planning Act have come into force and have also been modified and relaxed from time to time. As on the date of considering the revision petition dated 25.02.2020, the prime conditions for putting up a construction that falls within the coastal regulation zone are based on the nature of building, the distance between High Tide Line (HTL) and the total extent upon which the building is constructed.

10. As far as the case of the petitioner is concerned, the building falls within the Coastal Regulation Zone-II (CRZ-II) area and it is located 350 metres away from the High Tide Line (HTL). Hence, construction could be permitted only if the building is located on the landward side of an existing road or on the landward side of an existing authorized structure.

11. The petitioner relies upon the certificate issued by the then Tahsildar, Sholinganallur Taluk, which states that a cement concrete road exists on the eastern side of the petitioner’s plot bearing Door No.145, Casuarina Drive, Chennai-600 041. Relying upon the said certificate, the Executive Engineer, Zone-15 of the Greater Chennai Corporation, had informed the

Executive Engineer of the Town and Country Planning Department, Greater Chennai vide his communication dated 18.11.2025, that the road on the eastern side of the proposed residential building construction at Door No.145, Casuarina Drive, Chennai-600 041 situated at R.S.No.92/75B, 92/75C, 92/75D and 92/75E, Neelankarai village and the sea, was in existence prior to 19.02.1991 and the said road is inside the Aquatic quarantine facility campus.

12. Relying upon this communication of the Executive Engineer, Greater Chennai Corporation, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the road existed prior to 1991 and a building is erected inside the Aquatic quarantine facility campus by the Fisheries Department, the requirement of CRZ-II zone stand fully satisfied. Therefore, it is submitted that the reason given by the second respondent to reject the revision petition is without proper appreciation of the rule in existence.

13. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 submits that the building, as it stands without any planning permission, cannot be allowed to be retained by the petitioner herein for multiple reasons. Primarily, the construction as it stands is within the restricted distance mentioned under the Coastal Regulation Zone notification. The road in existence relied by the petitioner is not a public road and it is a road inside the campus of Aquatic quarantine facility center established by the Central

Government for the purpose of preserving marine life and resources. Highlighting that this building is meant for preserving natural resources, it is submitted that the petitioner cannot put up a construction that runs entirely contrary to the intention of the legislature and risks destroying marine resources.

14. Insofar as the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that apart from the Aquatic quarantine facility campus, there are also other buildings put up by the private parties, the learned Additional Government Pleader submits that action has been initiated against those persons and there will be no discrimination among the violators.

15. We take note of the fact that there is a batch petitions pending before this Bench wherein persons similarly placed to the petitioner herein have got themselves impleaded or have filed separate writ petitions and this Court will take appropriate decision in those writ petitions based on their merits and the facts.

16. As far as this writ petition is concerned, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the writ petitioner herein is also arrayed as a party respondent in the pending case. Insofar as the impugned order challenged before us in this writ petition, the second respondent had considered the earlier directions of this Court and the representation submitted by the writ petitioner on 15.04.2026 pursuant to the subsequent order passed by this Court on 12.02.2026 in the batch in W.P.No.29772 of 2002.

17. The said representation was considered along with the documents furnished by the revision petitioner. The operative portion of the impugned order reads as below:- “7.In the letter No.MEC1/25735/97, dated 21.01.1998, the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority has informed that the planning permission application for the construction on the residential building has to be submitted to Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority through the Commissioner, St.Thomas Mount Panchayar Union at Chitlapakkam and not directly to Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority.

8. In the representation dated 18.02.1998, the revision petitioner has resubmitted the application for planiing permission through the Commissioner, St.Thomas Mount Panchayar Union at Chitlapakkam.

9. Further in the Letter MEC1/04553/99. Dated 15.03.1999 the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority has stated that the Government have issued orders to consider regularization of the construction constructed upto 28.02.1999 within Chennai Metropolitan Area subject to payment of Regularisation fee and various provisions. The revision petitioner may avail this opportunity to get

your building regularized under Regularisation schme (Regularisation Fee Rules, 1999) by applying before 29.05.1999, provided the site doeen’t fall in the Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) Area and it satisfies other restrictions imposed in the Government order and for buildings not got regularized during the scheme period as per the above mentioned rules action will be taken as per the provisions of Town and Country Planning Act.”

18. From the impugned order, it is clear that the regularization application purportedly submitted by the writ petitioner to the authorities cannot be considered at this length of time, particularly since the land falls within the Coastal Regulation Zone area. Apart from that, it is found that the building of the petitioner is at a distance of 217 metre from the High Tide Line. In the impugned order, it is stated that there is no cross road in between the petitioner's plot and the Bay of Bengal. The petitioner’s counsel relied on the communication of the Executive Engineer, Greater Chennai Corporation, which has based on a letter given by the then Tahsildar, Sholinganallur, stating that a cement road runs on the eastern side. However, the road lies inside the campus of a Central Government organization cannot be considered as road in existence to circumvent the regulations.

19. When admittedly the building is located within 217 metres from the High Tide Line, the distance restriction must be strictly interpreted and followed. A passage facility inside an institutional campus established by a Government Department or any unauthorized construction elsewhere, cannot be taken as a reference point for measuring the distance restriction.

20. It is also profitable to take note of the fact that the Coastal Regulation Zone notification, while classifying areas falling under CRZ-II Zone, has clarified by way of explanation that an area “developed up to or close to the shoreline” means the area within the existing municipal limit or existing local body area which has been substantially built up and has been provided with an approach road and other infrastructural facilities such as water supply, sewerage.

21. Therefore, the regulations as found in the said notification must be read compositely and not in isolation. Even assuming that the cement road was in existence prior to the establishment of Aquatic Quarantine (AQ) Facility center, the location of the petitioner’s building does not fall within the expression “development area” on that count also. The petitioner has no legs to question the impugned order. As a result, this Writ Petition stands dismissed as devoid of merits. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs. (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 Secretary to Government Housing and Urban Development Department, Secretariat, Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009.

2. The Additional Secretary to Government (Technical) Housing and Urban Development Department, Secretariat, Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009.

3. The Commissioner Greater Chennai Corporation, Ripon Buildings, Chennai - 600 003

4. The Executive Engineer Zone XV, Greater Chennai Corporation, No.120, Rajiv Gandhi Salai, Sholinganallur, Chennai - 600 119.

DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN J. and E.MANOHARAN J. rpl Writ Petition No. 36570 of 2026 and W.M.P.No. 40983 of 2026 09-09-2026