Chennai Man Must Demolish Unauthorized Building Portions Within 2 Months, Or Corporation Will Demolish Them And Recover Costs: Madras HC

Following a complaint, the authorities initiated enforcement action against the petitioner for unauthorised construction and deviations, issued a lock-and-seal notice, and followed the statutory procedure. The petitioner appealed under Section 80A of the Act. By order dated 16 September 2025, the Government directed him to remove the unauthorised portions and restore the building in accordance with the approved plan within three months.

As the petitioner had not complied, the Corporation issued a de-occupation notice on 24 August 2026, which he challenged under Article 226 of the Constitution. During the hearing, the petitioner undertook to carry out the demolition and restoration within two months.

The Court considered the petitioner’s challenge under Article 226 of the Constitution and noted that he had previously pursued an appeal under Section 80A of the Act against the lock-and-seal notice.

The operative principle applied was that, in light of the petitioner’s undertaking, he was to remove the unauthorised construction and restore the building within the time fixed by the Court; on default, the authorities could carry out the demolition and recover the cost under the Act and rules.

The Government had considered the unauthorised construction and directed rectification within three months, but nearly a year had passed without compliance. The Court therefore did not grant the requested relief by quashing the de-occupation notice.

Instead, relying on the petitioner’s undertaking to comply, it gave him a further two months to demolish the unauthorised portions and restore the building. The Court provided for enforcement by the respondents if he failed to do so.

If he failed to comply, the respondents were directed to undertake the demolition and recover the cost from him under the Act and rules. No costs were ordered.