Madras High Court Administrative and Public Law Property and Real Estate Law

Madras HC Directs Corporation To Conclude Proceedings On Alleged Illegal Construction At 3 Sowcarpet Properties After Hearing All Parties

By LawLens Team · Editorial and Research TeamDecided October 28, 2026Published 29 October 2026 at 5:23 pm IST1 min read

The LawLens card for this judgment

In brief

The question

Whether the Court should direct the Corporation to remove the alleged unauthorised constructions in response to the petitioner’s complaints.

The court held

The Court disposed of all three writ petitions with a direction to the Corporation to proceed in accordance with law, afford a reasonable hearing to all concerned parties, including the private respondents, and conclude the proceedings as expeditiously as possible.

It also directed

No order as to costs was made.

01Facts

The petitioner filed three writ petitions under Article 226 seeking mandamus directing the Greater Chennai Corporation to remove alleged unauthorised constructions at Door Nos. 364 and 361, Mint Street, and Door No. 17, Kandappa Mudaly Street, Sowcarpet, Chennai, based on his complaints and related CMDA communications.

pp. 1–4

The Corporation had informed the petitioner that it had conducted a field inspection, issued Form-I notices, and would take further action in accordance with law if violations were found.

pp. 5–6

The Court dispensed with notice to the private respondents because no adverse order was being passed against them.

p. 5

02Issues

i.Whether the Court should direct the Corporation to remove the alleged unauthorised constructions in response to the petitioner’s complaints.

pp. 1–4

ii.Whether the Corporation should be directed to complete its examination of the alleged violations through proceedings conducted in accordance with law.

pp. 5–6

03Law Applied

The petitions invoked the High Court’s jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to seek mandamus.

pp. 1–4

The Court directed the Corporation to proceed in accordance with law and to afford a reasonable opportunity of hearing to all concerned parties, including the private respondents, before concluding the proceedings.

p. 6

No particular statutory provision or precedent was cited in the order.

04Reasoning

The Corporation had already inspected the properties and issued Form-I notices, and was examining whether any rules had been violated.

pp. 5–6

In those circumstances, the Court did not order immediate removal of the constructions; instead, it directed the Corporation to complete the process in accordance with law, after hearing all concerned parties, and bring the proceedings to a conclusion expeditiously.

p. 6