Madras HC Directs Demolition Of Chennai Woman’s Unapproved Home On Natham Land, Where Occupation Alone Confers No Ownership

A complainant sought removal of the petitioner’s allegedly unauthorised building.

After the complainant obtained directions for enforcement action, the Corporation issued lock-and-seal and demolition notices.

The petitioner challenged those notices and a subsequent Corporation letter in earlier writ proceedings; she later filed a statutory appeal under Section 80A of the Tamil Nadu Country Planning Act, 1972.

Following notice and an enquiry, the Government rejected the appeal by order dated 1 October 2026.

The petitioner then sought certiorari to quash that order.

The Court noted that she produced no building-plan approval and that the land was classified as “Natham”.

The Court considered Section 80A of the Tamil Nadu Country Planning Act, 1972, under which the petitioner pursued a statutory appeal against the enforcement action.

It also applied Revenue Standing Order 21 (RSO 21), stating that “Natham” land vests with the Government and may be used for public purposes or assigned to eligible homeless poor persons, ordinarily up to three cents for a dwelling; occupation alone does not confer ownership, and unauthorised occupation may be addressed under the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act.

No judicial precedent was cited in the order.

The Court found that the petitioner had not produced any document establishing either building-plan approval or a right to the land.

It accepted the Government’s finding, following notice and enquiry, that the occupation was unauthorised.

Applying its stated understanding of RSO 21, the Court held that occupation of “Natham” land did not establish ownership and that the enforcement action was not shown to be infirm.

It observed that, if the petitioner could establish that she was a homeless poor person, she could apply to the competent authority for allotment under RSO 21 and any applicable welfare scheme.

It directed the authorities to proceed with enforcement and demolish the unauthorised construction, while leaving the petitioner at liberty to apply for allotment if eligible under RSO 21.

No costs were awarded; the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.