CRP/4627/2026 of C.Sai Naren Vs State of Tamil Nadu on 21 August 2026

ORDER

Heard Mr.K.Balaji, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.P.Sunil, learned Government Advocate for the respondents.

2. The revision petitioner challenges the order passed by the appellate authority, viz., second respondent, herein, rejecting the appeal preferred by the revision petitioner, challenging the proceedings of the third respondent, Commissioner.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the subject property falls within the residential zone, and planning permission has been obtained for use of the property for residential purpose. He submits that despite this, an allegation of violation has been made, and a lock, seal, and demolition notice has been issued. 

CRP No. 4627 of 2026

4. Today, the learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner is willing to rectify the defects and bring the construction in compliance with the permission granted and to enable the same, seeks some indulgence to be afforded before the appellate authority.

5. The learned counsel for the respondent has brought to my notice that the second respondent dismissed the appeal in Ka.Ma. No. 13/2009/F1 by an order dated 23.06.2026. Consequently, a notice was issued by the third respondent, the Commissioner calling upon the petitioner to show cause why the premises should not be locked and sealed in compliance with the orders passed by the Commissioner and confirmed by the appellate authority. He, therefore, submitted that without challenging the order dated 23.06.2026, the petitioner’s revision petition itself is not maintainable

6. However, today, considering the fact that the petitioner is not per se challenging the proceedings of the commissioner and the appellate authority, but only seeks an indulgence to go back to the appellate authority seeking permission and time to rectify the building and convert its usage to bring it in line with statutory requirements, this Court is inclined to consider the request

CRP No. 4627 of 2026

7. I do not see how the non challenge to the order dated 23.06.2026 is fatal to the case of the petitioner. In the light of the above, the order of the appellate authority is set aside for the limited purposes of permitting the petitioner to approach the second respondent with a request to modify/rectify the construction to bring it in line with the planning permission subject to reasonable time being granted. In the event of such request being made, if any, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, the same shall be considered by the second respondent after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner as well and thereafter, a final order should be passed in the appeal.

8. The revision is therefore allowed, setting aside the order of the second respondent dated 19.05.2026 and also consequently order of the third respondent dated 23.06.2026 with the direction contained in paragraph 7, herein above. Connected MP is closed. No costs. 21-08-2026 VCA

CRP No. 4627 of 2026

To,

1. The Secretary to Government, Municipal Administration and water Supply Department, Secretariat, Fort St.George, Chennai-09.

2. The Special Secretary to Government Municipal Administration and water Supply Department, Secretariat, Fort St.George, Chennai-09.

3. The Commissioner Kodikanal Municipality, Kodaikanal, Dinfigul Dist.

CRP No. 4627 of 2026

P.B.BALAJI, J. VCA CRP No. 4627 of 2026 and CMP No.20302 of 2026 21-08-2026