Delegated Authority to Regional Deputy Commissioners Validates Encroachment Notices Under Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Act

The petitioner challenged a notice (Ref No. Zone-X/Enc/Dn 129/1/2025 dated 25.07.2025) issued by the Regional Deputy Commissioner (Central), Greater Chennai Corporation, for the removal of encroachments at Door No. 7/13, Anantharamakrishnan Street, Saligramam

The notice was issued following a joint survey conducted by the Chennai Corporation and the Tahsildar of Mambalam Taluk, pursuant to a prior High Court order in W.P. No. 7089 of 2025, which identified the petitioner’s building as an encroachment on a street pathway

The petitioner sought to quash the notice, alleging it was illegal, arbitrary, and issued without jurisdiction

Whether the Regional Deputy Commissioner had the legal jurisdiction to issue an encroachment removal notice under Section 128 of the Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Act, 1998

Section 128 and Section 129 of the Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Act, 1998, regarding the removal of encroachments from public places

Principle of "Delegation of Power," as evidenced by the Proceedings of the Commissioner (L.C.C. No. LC1/1102/2025 dated 14.03.2025), which explicitly delegated the Commissioner’s statutory powers under Section 128 to Regional Deputy Commissioners to expedite enforcement actions

The petitioner’s primary contention was that the notice was void for lack of jurisdiction as it was signed by the Regional Deputy Commissioner rather than the Commissioner

However, the Court examined the counter-affidavit and the specific proceedings dated 14.03.2025 issued by the Commissioner, Greater Chennai Corporation. These proceedings demonstrated that the Commissioner, in exercise of statutory authority, had formally delegated the power to issue notices under Section 128 to Regional Deputy Commissioners to ensure "speedy action"

Consequently, the Court found that the Regional Deputy Commissioner was legally empowered to act, rendering the petitioner's jurisdictional challenge "untenable"

The Court further noted that the notice was the result of a coordinated survey previously mandated by the High Court

The Court granted the petitioner liberty to submit an explanation and supporting documents in response to the notice; the competent authority is directed to consider such explanation and take a final decision before proceeding with the removal of encroachments. No costs were awarded