M.Anumanthu vs The Commissioner

W.A.No.3289 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 28.10.2026
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI,
CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN
W.A.No.3289 of 2026
CNR:{HCMA012442242026}
& C.M.P.Nos.29133 & 29135 of 2026
M.Anumanthu
S/o. (Late) K.Murugan,
th
No. 5/35 Saurashtra Nagar 9 Street,
Choolaimedu
Chennai 600 094.
Appellant(s)
Vs
1. The Commissioner
Greater Chennai Corporation,
Ripon Building,
Chennai 600 003.
2. The Executive Engineer
Greater Chennai Corporation,
th
Zone IX, No.4, 4 Cross Street
Lake View Road
Chennai 600 034.
3. The Assistant Executive/Zonal Officer
Greater Chennai Corporation,
Zone IX, Nungambakkam
Chennai 600 034.
__________
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 05:39:20 pm )

W.A.No.3289 of 2026
4. The Assistant Engineer
Greater Chennai Corporation,
Ward 112, Zone IX, Trustpuram,
Kodambakkam, Chennai 600 024.
5. M.Babu
S/o. (Late) K.Murugan,
th
No.69/22 Saurashtra Nagar 10 Street
Choolaimedu, Chennai 600 094.
Respondent(s)
Prayer :Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent seeking
to set aside the order dated 24.09.2026 passed in W.P.No.46074 of
2025.
For Appellant(s): Mr.T.Thirisangu
For Respondent(s): Mr.D.B.R.Prabhu
Standing Counsel for R1 to R4

JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by
G.Arul Murugan,J)
24.09.2026
This intra-court appeal assails the order dated
passed in W.P.No.46074 of 2025, whereby the challenge made to the
demolition permission dated 06.11.2025 was rejected.
__________
Page 2 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 05:39:20 pm )

W.A.No.3289 of 2026
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
__________
Page 3 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 05:39:20 pm )

W.A.No.3289 of 2026
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,
th
Sowrashtra Nagar 9 Street, Sowrashtra Nagar,
Choolaimedu, Puliyur, Chennai 600094.
Subject to the following conditions.
1. Suitable arrangements should be made to reduce the dust
nuisance.
__________
Page 4 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 05:39:20 pm )

W.A.No.3289 of 2026
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
__________
Page 5 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 05:39:20 pm )

W.A.No.3289 of 2026
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
__________
Page 6 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 05:39:20 pm )

W.A.No.3289 of 2026
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,
th
Zone IX, No.4, 4 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.
__________
Page 7 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 05:39:20 pm )

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

28.10.2026
__________
Page 8 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 05:39:20 pm )