WP/33788/2026 of V.ARUN KUMAR Vs State of Tamil Nadu Represented by its on 1 September 2026

ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by Dr.G.Jayachandran J.) This Writ Petition has been filed by the building owner, who is aggrieved by the order dated 06.05.2026, passed by the 1st respondent in the revision petition preferred by the petitioner herein.

2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the subject building stands on “Gramanatham” land and the construction was carried out after obtaining building permission from the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority (CMDA) vide order dated 06.04.2009. It is also submitted that when proceedings were initiated for the demolition of the construction, the petitioner opposed the same; however, their objections were not properly considered by the authorities. The petitioner further states that they have come forward to rectify the deviations and have submitted a representation dated 11.11.2025, seeking a revised plan approval. Despite the said request, the 1st respondent rejected the Review Petition. As a consequence, the Principal Secretary to Government, Housing and Urban Development Department, has issued a letter dated 31.07.2026, directing the Commissioner, Greater Chennai Corporation, to proceed with action for the removal of the unauthorized construction made by the writ petitioner.

3. The specific case of the writ petitioner is that her mother had obtained a building plan permission from the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority (CMDA) on 06.04.2009 for the construction of a residential building consisting of a Stilt Floor (part) + Ground Floor (part) + First Floor + Second Floor (part), comprising four dwelling units, with the validity of the permit expiring on 05.03.2011. Accordingly, the construction was completed, the property was assessed to tax and the petitioner along with her mother has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same.

4. It is submitted that the original building planning permission was washed away during the unprecedented floods in the year 2015. On the premise that the building is situated on Government Poramboke land and the construction was carried out without permission, the impugned proceedings were initiated. The authorities have failed to consider the request made by the petitioner to rectify the deviations and the fact that the land is classified as “Sarkar Poramboke Gramanatham”.

5. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 and 2, on instructions, submitted that the construction put up by the petitioner herein is being used for commercial purposes on land classified as “Gramanatham”. He further submitted that during an inspection conducted on 26.12.2024, it was found that the unapproved building consists of a Ground Floor + Two Floors with an RCC roof across three blocks. Hence, proceedings were initiated and after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the revision petition was rejected vide proceedings dated 06.05.2026. Consequently, the Government instructed the Greater Chennai Corporation to take further action regarding the request of the writ petitioner seeking for building rectification and regularization of the construction.

6. It is submitted that the said request, lacking proper documents of any earlier approved plan, is not fit for consideration. We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents.

7. The building admittedly erected on land classified in the revenue records as “Government Poramboke Gramanatham”. The building measures about 5404.25 sq.mts. and is being used for commercial purposes. Though the petitioner produced receipts and a permission letter issued by the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority (CMDA), they failed to produce a copy of the approved plan.

8. A reading of the planning permission letter indicates that based on the application submitted by one Vijayalakshmi on 02.02.2009, permission was granted to construct the stilt floor (part) + ground floor (part) + first floor (part) + second floor (part) for four residential dwelling units after collecting the development charges. However, the subsequent inspection of the building conducted on 26.12.2024 revealed the construction of a ground + two floors with an RCC roof, the entire measurements of which are detailed below.

Sl. No. Descriptio n Approved Building Area Block A as per site area in m2 Block B as per site area in m2 Block C as per site area in m2 Unauthori zed building area in m2

1. Ground Floor - 1282.70 Sq.m 415.63 Sq.m 154.63 Sq.m 1852.96 Sq.m

2. First Floor - 1282.70 Sq.m 415.63 Sq.m 154.63 Sq.m 1852.96 Sq.m

3. Second Floor - 1282.70 Sq.m 415.63 Sq.m 154.63 Sq.m 1852.96 Sq.m

4. No. of Floors - Ground Floor + 2 floors Ground Floor + 2 floors Ground Floor + 2 floors Ground Floor + 2 floors Total Area - 3848.10 Sq.m 1246.89 Sq.m 309.26 Sq.m 5404.25 Sq.m

9. Even assuming that the petitioner has an approval for the building though the building plan has not been produced, the structure as it stands on the land is not in consonance with the description of the permission found in the permission letter dated 06.04.2009, relied by the writ petitioner herein. As pointed out by the learned Additional Government Pleader, the letter of undertaking submitted by the writ petitioner stating that he is ready to rectify the deviations does not indicate the permitted portion of the building or the specific deviations he intends to remove.

10. A vague representation with an undertaking to rectify the deviations is incurable, when the primary deviation found by the authorities is the conflicting use of a building on “Gramanatham” land for commercial purposes. Even assuming that permission for a building existed, such permission was only for residential purposes. Therefore, we find that the impugned proceedings of the respondents passed after following the due process of law, warrant no interference by this court.

11. Accordingly, this Writ Petition stands dismissed. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. No costs. (Dr.G.J.,J.) (E.M.,J.) 01-09-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No aj/rpl To

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

2. The Additional Secretary (Technical), Housing And Urban Development Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, Fort St.George, Chennai- 600 009.

3. The Executive Engineer, Zone-7 (Ambattur), Greater Chennai Corporation, Ambattur, Chennai-600 053.

4. The Assistant Engineer, Division-84, Unit-19, Zone-7, Greater Chennai Corporation, Korattur, Chennai-600 080.

5. The Member Secretary, Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority, Thalalamuthu Natarajan Building, No.1, Gandhi Irwin Road, Egmore, Chennai - 600 008.

DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN J. and E.MANOHARAN J. aj/rpl Writ Petition No. 33788 of 2026 and W.M.P.Nos. 37180, 37182 & 37184 of 2026 01-09-2026