WP/36121/2026 of MANJULA LAKSHMAN Vs THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU on 8 September 2026

ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by Dr.G.Jayachandran J.) The petitioners are owners of the building constructed in CRZ (Coastal Regulation Zone), in violation of Building Rules. Challenging the demolition order of the first respondent dated 27.07.2026, the present Writ Petition has been filed. The petitioners have further sought for a direction to the respondents to pass order in their regularization application dated 02.03.2022. In addition, the petitioners have challenged the Tamil Nadu Combined Development and Building Rules, 2019, Appendix -A (5) (i), which prescribes a minimum plot extent of 220 sq.m for permitting development in an Aquifer Recharge Area as arbitrary and illegal infringing the fundamental rights of the citizen to have and hold a shelter of his financial capacity for the right to live and to declare the said part as ultra vires.

2. Heard both sides.

3. The petitioners herein are the owner of land bearing Plot No.5/3 Part (Southern Portion), Singaravelan 7th Cross Street, Neelangarai, measuring an extent of 1350 sq.ft (125.4 sq.m). They claim that the said piece of land was purchased by them through a registered sale deed under Doc.No.6007 of 2014 dated 27.08.2014 along with the building where electricity facility have been provided to the building and property tax collected by the Neelangarai local body. When the third respondent namely, the Executive Engineer, Greater Chennai Corporation issued a notice on 05.04.2018 calling for the plan approval, the petitioners were not able to furnish the approval plan. Hence, lock and seal and demolition notice was issued on 28.01.2020.

4. Aggrieved by the same, Revision Petition was filed under Section 80A of Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 and simultaneously, an application for regularization was also submitted on 02.03.2022 and both were pending consideration. While so, pursuant to the direction of this Court in W.P.No.29772 of 2002 and batch, issued on 12.02.2026, the first respondent has passed the order on 27.07.2026, rejecting the revision petition and hence, the present Writ Petition to quash the impugned order dated 27.07.2026 on the ground that by giving retrospective effect to the Aquifer Recharge Area (ARA) under the Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) Notification, 2019, the order passed is in gross violation to the principles of natural justice.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the norms fixed under the Coastal Regularization Zone Notification (CRZ) 2019 and the Aquifer Recharge Area (ARA) requirements prescribed under the Tamil Nadu Combined Development and Building Rules, 2019, lacks a principled, coherent framework for applying the doctrine of proportionality. He further submitted that when the application for regularization was pending before the Authority, no order in coercive nature can be passed. The further contention of the learned counsel is that, the High Tide Line (HTL) falls 265 mts away from the petitioners’ building. Hence, the property of the petitioners which is now falling under CRZ-II, which clears the distance test and insofar as the minimum plot extent for Aquifer Recharge Area which is fixed as 220 mts as per the 2019 Rules, the same should not apply to the building which came into existence prior to 2014.

6. Per contra, the learned Special Government Pleader drew our attention to the litigation history of this matter which forms part of the batch of writ petitions pending before this Court in connection with the removal of illegal constructions along the CRZ, particularly, the buildings along the ECR Road starting from Neelangarai to Uthandi. As far as the writ petitioners are concerned, the construction of their building stands in an unapproved lay out and the building is constructed within the land measuring 125 sq. meters. From 2018, the petitioners been informed about the illegal structure and directed to remove the illegal structure. The actions were taken pursuant to the directions issued by this Court by way of continuous Mandamus. Insofar as this writ petition is concerned, under the guise of challenging the order passed in the revision petition, incidentally the writ petitioners also questions vires of Appendix -A (5) of Tamil Nadu Combined Development and Building Rules, 2019, which had been in force since February 2019, pertaining to Aquifer

Recharge Area.

7. We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Special Government Pleader for the first respondent.

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). 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 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 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. 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.

13. Hence, looking at any angle, any application made after the Rule came into effect need to be examined in the light of the current Rule in force. Even according to the petitioners, no attempt was made to regularize his building prior to 2019 and all his request and applications were subsequent to that and the present application is made only in the month of May 2026, obviously to delay the inevitable.

14. Therefore, we find no error or illegality in the order passed by the first respondent dated 27.07.2026 and hence, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. There shall be no order as to costs. (G.J.,J.) (E.M.,J.) 08-09-2026 Index: Yes Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No DP

To

1. The 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, Secretariat, Chennai-09.

DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN, J. AND E.MANOHARAN, J. DP WP No. 36121 of 2026 08-09-2026