A road within a government institutional campus cannot qualify as an existing road under CRZ-II regulations.

The petitioner purchased the subject property in 1988 and constructed a residential building in 1989 without obtaining planning permission.

The second respondent rejected the revision petition on 29.07.2026, and a consequential de-occupation notice was issued on 20.08.2026.

The petitioner relied on a Tahsildar’s certificate and a communication from the Greater Chennai Corporation stating that a cement-concrete road existed on the eastern side of the property before 19.02.1991.

The respondents contended that the road was only an internal passage within the campus of an Aquatic Quarantine Facility and could not qualify as an existing public road for CRZ purposes.

Whether the petitioner’s unauthorised residential construction, erected in 1989 without planning permission, could be retained or regularised merely because it pre-dated the subsequent coastal regulation framework and had remained in existence for several years?

Whether the cement road within the Aquatic Quarantine Facility campus constituted an “existing road” for purposes of the CRZ-II requirement permitting construction on the landward side of an existing road or authorised structure?

Whether the impugned order rejecting the petitioner’s revision under Section 80-A of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971, and the consequential de-occupation action were liable to be quashed?

The Court applied the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971, including Section 80-A concerning revision of planning-related orders, and the requirement that construction must have valid planning permission.

It applied the CRZ-II regulations under the Coastal Regulation Zone Notification dated 06.01.2011, as subsequently amended, under which construction in the relevant area is permissible only where it is located on the landward side of an existing road or an existing authorised structure.

The Court further relied on the notification’s explanation of an area “developed up to or close to the shoreline,” requiring substantial built-up development together with an approach road and infrastructure such as water supply and sewerage; the CRZ provisions were required to be read compositely rather than in isolation.

It also applied the principle that unauthorised construction and prolonged possession do not, by themselves, override statutory planning and environmental restrictions.

The Court held that the petitioner’s construction was admittedly unauthorised because it had been erected without planning permission, and its age did not confer a right to retain it contrary to the applicable planning and coastal regulations.

The pending or earlier regularisation request could not assist the petitioner, particularly since the property was situated within the CRZ area and the regularisation scheme itself excluded properties falling within that zone.

Although the petitioner relied on the existence of a cement road and an authorised Fisheries Department structure, the Court found that the road was merely an internal passage within a Central Government institutional campus and could not be treated as the existing road contemplated by the CRZ-II regulations.

Given that the building was located approximately 217 metres from the High Tide Line and had no intervening cross-road connecting it to the shoreline, the distance restriction had to be strictly enforced.

The Court further held that an internal institutional passage or another unauthorised construction could not be used as a reference point to circumvent the coastal restrictions.

Reading the CRZ provisions as a whole, the property also did not qualify as a developed area merely because a cement road existed nearby.

It held that the unauthorised construction could not be protected merely because it was erected in 1989 or had remained undisturbed for several years.

The internal road within the Aquatic Quarantine Facility campus did not satisfy the CRZ-II requirement of an existing road, and the property did not fall within the relevant developed-area exception.

Accordingly, the writ petition challenging the order dated 29.07.2026 was dismissed as devoid of merit, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed. No order as to costs was made.