Rajiv Sreedhar vs The Secretary to Government

WP No. 36570 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 09-09-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE DR JUSTICE G. JAYACHANDRAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE E.MANOHARAN
Writ Petition No. 36570 of 2026
and
W.M.P.No. 40983 of 2026
Rajiv Sreedhar
..Petitioner
Vs
1. The Secretary to Government
Housing and Urban Development Department,
Secretariat, Fort St. George,
Chennai - 600 009.
2. The Additional Secretary to Government
(Technical)
Housing and Urban Development Department,
Secretariat, Fort St. George,
Chennai - 600 009.
3. The Commissioner
Greater Chennai Corporation,
Ripon Buildings,
Chennai - 600 003
4. The Executive Engineer
Zone XV, Greater Chennai Corporation,
No.120, Rajiv Gandhi Salai,
Sholinganallur,
Chennai - 600 119.
..Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India,
to issue Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records no.4000/UD-7(2)/2020-1
__________
Page 1 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/09/2026 01:17:15 pm )

WP No. 36570 of 2026
dated 29.07.2026 rejecting the Revision Petition filed by the petitioner under
Section 80-A of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971, and
quash the same and consequently quash and /or forbear the respondents from
giving effect to the consequential De-Occupation Notice dated 20.08.2026
issued in respect of the petitioner’s residential property situated at Door
No.4/24, Casuarina Drive, Neelankarai, Chennai - 600 115 and pass.
For Petitioner: Mr.S.Rajasekar
For Respondents: Mr.B.Sivakollapan
Additional Government Pleader for R1 & R2
Mr.S.Santosh
Standing Counsel for R3 & R4
ORDER
( Order of the Court was made by Dr.G.Jayachandran J. )
The petitioner herein purchased the subject land in the year 1988, which
currently falls within the Coastal Regulation Zone-II (CRZ-II) area and
subsequently put up a construction thereon in the year 1989 without obtaining
any permission.
2. It is to be noted that even at the time of purchase, the land is not an
approved layout or meant for construction, though there was no express bar or
prohibition under law on the date of purchase. However, even as on the date of
the said construction, the law in force mandated that any building to be
constructed must have a valid planning permission; but then, in this case, there
was no such planning permission.
__________
Page 2 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/09/2026 01:17:15 pm )

WP No. 36570 of 2026
3. After the enactment of regulations to preserve the coastal zone and
the area appurtenant to the sea, the authorities started taking action to regulate
the constructions that have come up along the coastal zone, either with formal
permission from the authorities or without authorization and also constructions
made in deviation from the permitted plan. This action commenced as early as
the year 2011.
4. Several writ petitions were filed and some are pending even now.
Be that as it may, the present writ petition has been filed by the writ petitioner,
who has put up a construction as stated above, being aggrieved by the order
passed by the second respondent on 29.07.2026, pursuant to the revision
petition filed by this petitioner on 25.02.2020.
5. As we have stated earlier, though the action for implementing the
regulations started long back, due to the pendency of various writ petitions, the
authorities were not able to proceed further effectively. Thus, the revision
petition filed by the petitioner in the year 2020 was kept pending and only after
some directions of this Court by way of Mandamus the impugned order was
passed.
6. The impugned order is now challenged by the petitioner herein on
two primary grounds;
__________
Page 3 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/09/2026 01:17:15 pm )

WP No. 36570 of 2026
* The first ground is that the petitioner constructed the subject building as
early as 1989 when there was no such regulation in force and has been in
continuous possession and enjoyment all these years; therefore, the impugned
order for demolition issued without considering the spirit of the regulations has
to be quashed.
* The second contention is that even if the rules are implemented strictly
in letter and spirit, the regulations protect buildings on the landward side of an
existing road or on the landward side of existing authorized structure, as per
CRZ-II Zone regulations notified by the Ministry of Environment and Forest
dated 06.01.2011, as amended by subsequent notification issued in the year
2018.
7. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, though the writ
petitioner put up his construction without authorization in the year 1989, he has
as early as 1999, made a representation to the authorities of the CMDA for
regularization of the said construction under the regularization scheme. He
further submitted that this application for regularization is still pending before
the authorities without any final decision.
8. The impugned order passed by the second respondent is tested in
the light of the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
__________
Page 4 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/09/2026 01:17:15 pm )

WP No. 36570 of 2026
9. To start with, the construction as it stands is without any
permission. The regularization application alleged to have been given on
25.09.1999, 27 years ago, has not been considered till date. Meanwhile, various
regulations and the the Town and Country Planning Act have come into force
and have also been modified and relaxed from time to time. As on the date of
considering the revision petition dated 25.02.2020, the prime conditions for
putting up a construction that falls within the coastal regulation zone are based
on the nature of building, the distance between High Tide Line (HTL) and the
total extent upon which the building is constructed.
10. As far as the case of the petitioner is concerned, the building falls
within the Coastal Regulation Zone-II (CRZ-II) area and it is located 350 metres
away from the High Tide Line (HTL). Hence, construction could be permitted
only if the building is located on the landward side of an existing road or on the
landward side of an existing authorized structure.
11. The petitioner relies upon the certificate issued by the then
Tahsildar, Sholinganallur Taluk, which states that a cement concrete road exists
on the eastern side of the petitioner’s plot bearing Door No.145, Casuarina
Drive, Chennai-600 041. Relying upon the said certificate, the Executive
Engineer, Zone-15 of the Greater Chennai Corporation, had informed the
__________
Page 5 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/09/2026 01:17:15 pm )

WP No. 36570 of 2026
Executive Engineer of the Town and Country Planning Department, Greater
Chennai vide his communication dated 18.11.2025, that the road on the eastern
side of the proposed residential building construction at Door No.145,
Casuarina Drive, Chennai-600 041 situated at R.S.No.92/75B, 92/75C, 92/75D
and 92/75E, Neelankarai village and the sea, was in existence prior to
19.02.1991 and the said road is inside the Aquatic quarantine facility campus.
12. Relying upon this communication of the Executive Engineer,
Greater Chennai Corporation, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
since the road existed prior to 1991 and a building is erected inside the Aquatic
quarantine facility campus by the Fisheries Department, the requirement of
CRZ-II zone stand fully satisfied. Therefore, it is submitted that the reason
given by the second respondent to reject the revision petition is without proper
appreciation of the rule in existence.
13. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the
respondents 1 and 2 submits that the building, as it stands without any planning
permission, cannot be allowed to be retained by the petitioner herein for
multiple reasons. Primarily, the construction as it stands is within the restricted
distance mentioned under the Coastal Regulation Zone notification. The road in
existence relied by the petitioner is not a public road and it is a road inside the
campus of Aquatic quarantine facility center established by the Central
__________
Page 6 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/09/2026 01:17:15 pm )

WP No. 36570 of 2026
Government for the purpose of preserving marine life and resources.
Highlighting that this building is meant for preserving natural resources, it is
submitted that the petitioner cannot put up a construction that runs entirely
contrary to the intention of the legislature and risks destroying marine resources.
14. Insofar as the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner
that apart from the Aquatic quarantine facility campus, there are also other
buildings put up by the private parties, the learned Additional Government
Pleader submits that action has been initiated against those persons and there
will be no discrimination among the violators.
15. We take note of the fact that there is a batch petitions pending
before this Bench wherein persons similarly placed to the petitioner herein have
got themselves impleaded or have filed separate writ petitions and this Court
will take appropriate decision in those writ petitions based on their merits and
the facts.
16. As far as this writ petition is concerned, the learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that the writ petitioner herein is also arrayed as a party
respondent in the pending case. Insofar as the impugned order challenged before
us in this writ petition, the second respondent had considered the earlier
directions of this Court and the representation submitted by the writ petitioner
__________
Page 7 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/09/2026 01:17:15 pm )

WP No. 36570 of 2026
on 15.04.2026 pursuant to the subsequent order passed by this Court on
12.02.2026 in the batch in W.P.No.29772 of 2002.
17. The said representation was considered along with the documents
furnished by the revision petitioner. The operative portion of the impugned
order reads as below:-
“7.In the letter No.MEC1/25735/97, dated
21.01.1998, the Chennai Metropolitan Development
Authority has informed that the planning permission
application for the construction on the residential
building has to be submitted to Chennai Metropolitan
Development Authority through the Commissioner,
St.Thomas Mount Panchayar Union at Chitlapakkam
and not directly to Chennai Metropolitan
Development Authority.
8.In the representation dated 18.02.1998, the
revision petitioner has resubmitted the application for
planiing permission through the Commissioner,
St.Thomas Mount Panchayar Union at Chitlapakkam.
9.Further in the Letter MEC1/04553/99. Dated
15.03.1999 the Chennai Metropolitan Development
Authority has stated that the Government have issued
orders to consider regularization of the construction
constructed upto 28.02.1999 within Chennai
Metropolitan Area subject to payment of
Regularisation fee and various provisions. The
revision petitioner may avail this opportunity to get
__________
Page 8 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/09/2026 01:17:15 pm )

WP No. 36570 of 2026
your building regularized under Regularisation schme
(Regularisation Fee Rules, 1999) by applying before
29.05.1999, provided the site doeen’t fall in the
Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) Area and it satisfies
other restrictions imposed in the Government order
and for buildings not got regularized during the
scheme period as per the above mentioned rules
action will be taken as per the provisions of Town and
Country Planning Act.”
18. From the impugned order, it is clear that the regularization
application purportedly submitted by the writ petitioner to the authorities cannot
be considered at this length of time, particularly since the land falls within the
Coastal Regulation Zone area. Apart from that, it is found that the building of
the petitioner is at a distance of 217 metre from the High Tide Line. In the
impugned order, it is stated that there is no cross road in between the petitioner's
plot and the Bay of Bengal. The petitioner’s counsel relied on the
communication of the Executive Engineer, Greater Chennai Corporation, which
has based on a letter given by the then Tahsildar, Sholinganallur, stating that a
cement road runs on the eastern side. However, the road lies inside the campus
of a Central Government organization cannot be considered as road in existence
to circumvent the regulations.
19. When admittedly the building is located within 217 metres from the
High Tide Line, the distance restriction must be strictly interpreted and
__________
Page 9 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/09/2026 01:17:15 pm )

WP No. 36570 of 2026
followed. A passage facility inside an institutional campus established by a
Government Department or any unauthorized construction elsewhere, cannot be
taken as a reference point for measuring the distance restriction.
20. It is also profitable to take note of the fact that the Coastal
Regulation Zone notification, while classifying areas falling under CRZ-II
Zone, has clarified by way of explanation that an area “developed up to or close
to the shoreline” means the area within the existing municipal limit or existing
local body area which has been substantially built up and has been provided
with an approach road and other infrastructural facilities such as water supply,
sewerage.
21. Therefore, the regulations as found in the said notification must be
read compositely and not in isolation. Even assuming that the cement road was
in existence prior to the establishment of Aquatic Quarantine (AQ) Facility
center, the location of the petitioner’s building does not fall within the
expression “development area” on that count also. The petitioner has no legs to
question the impugned order. As a result, this Writ Petition stands dismissed as
devoid of merits. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
No costs.
(Dr.G.J.,J.) (E.M.,J.)
09-09-2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
__________
Page 10 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/09/2026 01:17:15 pm )

WP No. 36570 of 2026
rpl
To
1.The Secretary to Government
Housing and Urban Development Department,
Secretariat, Fort St. George,
Chennai - 600 009.
2.The Additional Secretary to Government (Technical)
Housing and Urban Development Department,
Secretariat, Fort St. George,
Chennai - 600 009.
3.The Commissioner
Greater Chennai Corporation,
Ripon Buildings,
Chennai - 600 003
4.The Executive Engineer
Zone XV, Greater Chennai Corporation,
No.120, Rajiv Gandhi Salai,
Sholinganallur,
Chennai - 600 119.
__________
Page 11 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/09/2026 01:17:15 pm )

WP No. 36570 of 2026
DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN J.
and
E.MANOHARAN J.
rpl
Writ Petition No. 36570 of 2026
and
W.M.P.No. 40983 of 2026
09-09-2026
__________
Page 12 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/09/2026 01:17:15 pm )