Madras HC Orders Sealed Premises Reopened For Owner To Demolish Unauthorised Construction Within Six Weeks, Or Municipality Must Do It And Recover Costs

The petitioner sought a mandamus directing the Municipality to remove the lock and seal on premises at Plot Nos. 29, 30 and 31, Kamarajar Salai, Kundrathur, so he could access the property and remove his belongings

The dispute followed prior litigation concerning unauthorised construction; the Court had directed enforcement action, and the petitioner’s appeal under Section 80A of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971, had been unsuccessful

After the Municipality locked and sealed the premises, the petitioner undertook by sworn affidavit to demolish the unauthorised permanent and temporary construction within six weeks of de-sealing

The petition was brought under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which empowers the High Court to issue writs, including mandamus

The judgment also records that the petitioner’s appeal under Section 80A of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971, had been decided against him

The Court cited no precedent or separate statutory test; it resolved the matter on the petitioner’s sworn undertaking and the Municipality’s submission that it would de-seal the premises to permit demolition

In light of the prior enforcement proceedings and the petitioner’s undertaking to remove the unauthorised construction in its entirety, the Court directed de-sealing to facilitate that work rather than grant unrestricted access for removal of belongings

To ensure compliance, it directed the Municipality to monitor the demolition and provided that, if the petitioner failed to complete it within six weeks, the Municipality could demolish the construction and recover the charges from him

The petitioner was required to demolish all unauthorised permanent and temporary construction within six weeks from that date, under the Municipality’s monitoring; on default, the Municipality was to carry out the demolition and recover its charges from the petitioner

No costs were awarded