Madras HC Rejects Tambaram Owner’s Encroachment-Notice Challenge, Says Corporation Must Decide His Objection Before Enforcement

The petitioner challenged a notice dated 21 September 2026, issued under Section 128(1) of the Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Act, 1998, concerning alleged encroachment on public land at his property in Madambakkam.

He contended that he had not encroached on public land and that the notice was issued without an opportunity to be heard.

The State submitted that a survey conducted on 31 August 2026 had identified encroachments.

The petitioner had submitted a representation to the Commissioner on 1 October 2026.

Section 128(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Act, 1998 empowers the Commissioner to remove an immovable structure encroaching on a street, public place, water body, or land belonging to or vested in a municipality, after issuing a show-cause notice allowing fifteen days from receipt for response.

The proviso requires the Commissioner to consider any representation received within that period before passing final orders.

Enforcement action may proceed after the competent authority has considered the representation and passed final orders.

The Court held that Section 128(1)(b) authorised the competent authorities to issue a notice upon identifying an encroachment; the notice was therefore not invalid merely because the petitioner disputed the alleged encroachment or had not participated in the earlier survey.

Since the petitioner had submitted a representation, the Commissioner was required to consider it and pass final orders before proceeding with enforcement.

The Court accordingly declined to quash the notice at that stage.

The Court directed the Commissioner to consider the petitioner’s representation, pass final orders, and only thereafter proceed with enforcement action in accordance with the applicable law.