WA/3289/2026 of M.Anumanthu Vs The Commissioner on 28 October 2026

JUDGMENT

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by G.Arul Murugan,J) This intra-court appeal assails the order dated 24.09.2026 passed in W.P.No.46074 of 2025, whereby the challenge made to the demolition permission dated 06.11.2025 was rejected.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials on record.

3. Appellant and fifth respondent are brothers. In the partition effected between them, the subject property was allotted to fifth respondent. Fifth respondent wanted to develop the property and therefore, submitted an application before the Corporation seeking permission to demolish the building. By proceedings dated 06.11.2025, fifth respondent was granted permission to demolish the building.

4. Appellant, aggrieved by the permission granted in favour of fifth respondent for demolition of building, filed the writ petition. The apprehension of appellant is that if demolition is carried out, there will be a considerable damage to his building. Fifth respondent has given an undertaking before the learned Single Judge that the entire demolition would be carried out by taking all necessary precautions and also by preventing any damage to the adjacent property, i.e. property of appellant. The learned Single Judge, observing that the properties of both appellant and fifth respondent do not share common wall; that the interest of appellant is well protected by the demolition permission granted by Corporation; and in the light of the undertaking given by fifth respondent, disposed of the writ petition.

5. Learned counsel for appellant mainly contended that fifth respondent is carrying on demolition without taking any safeguard measures and since area is not mentioned in the permission, appellant apprehends damage to his property.

6. A perusal of the demolition permission issued by the Corporation dated 06.11.2025 makes it clear that all necessary safeguards have already been provided in the demolition permission and the same read as under: “Approval is hereby granted in accordance with the provision of Section 246(A) of CCMC, Act, 1919, for the demolition of the existing building at Door No:No.5/35, Block No:19, Plot No:-, Survey No:T.S.No.14/61 & 14/62, Choolaimedu, Sowrashtra Nagar 9th Street, Sowrashtra Nagar, Choolaimedu, Puliyur, Chennai 600094. Subject to the following conditions.

1. Suitable arrangements should be made to reduce the dust nuisance.

2. Necessary safety barricading with the suitable material should be provided.

3. All pre-cautionery measures should be taken to prevent danger and damages to the neighbouring building and passersby.

4. If the building is occupied by tenant(s); demolition of the building should be taken only after the tenant(s) vacating by themselves or after evicting the tenant(s) from the building through due process of law.

5. This permission is only for the demolition of the existing building and not for regularisation of unauthorized sub- division of plot, if any.

6. After completing the barricading arrangements the building owners / developers have to intimate the division Assistant Engineer / Junior Engineer for inspection of the same in the Greater Chennai Corporation portal along with the site photos uploaded online.

7. The site inspection will be carried out within 3 days by the Assistant Engineer / Junior Engineer.

8. If the barricading arrangements are sufficient, the Assistant Engineers / Junior Engineers will permit the building owners / developers to start the work on the portal immediately (within the same day).

9. If the barricading arrangement are not carried out to the satisfaction, the same will be intimated to the building owner / developers to rectify it and inform to proceed further.”

7. A bare perusal of the demolition permission issued by the Corporation makes it clear that all required safeguards and precautionary measures have been stipulated and that the said permission was granted subject to strict adherence to all the safeguard and precautionary measures by fifth respondent.

8. Further, when fifth respondent has given an undertaking before the learned Single Judge that the entire demolition work would be carried out without causing any damage to the adjacent property, particularly, the building of appellant and when the demolition permission clearly delineates all the conditions whereby the properties of adjacent owners are protected, the apprehension of appellant is totally misconceived.

9. In view of the above, we find no error or infirmity in the order of the learned Single Judge warranting interference. Accordingly, this writ appeal is dismissed. It is made clear that demolition work shall be carried out by fifth respondent strictly adhering to the permission granted by the Corporation. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the interim applications are also dismissed. (SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI,CJ) (G.ARUL MURUGAN,J)

28.10.2026 Index : Yes/No Neutral Citation : Yes/No kpl To

1. The Commissioner Greater Chennai Corporation, Ripon Building, Chennai 600 003.

2. The Executive Engineer Greater Chennai Corporation, Zone IX, No.4, 4th Cross Street Lake View Road Chennai 600 034.

3. The Assistant Executive/Zonal Officer Greater Chennai Corporation, Zone IX, Nungambakkam Chennai 600 034.

4. The Assistant Engineer Greater Chennai Corporation, Ward 112, Zone IX, Trustpuram, Kodambakkam, Chennai 600 024.

THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND G.ARUL MURUGAN,J. (kpl) W.A.No.3289 of 2026

28.10.2026