Owners may pursue regularisation or statutory remedies; the court expresses no view on the notice’s merits.

The petitioner challenged notice No. 2/2024/JE1, dated 13 August 2024, alleging unauthorised construction contrary to the sanctioned building plan at two properties in Tirunelveli.

The notice followed a direction issued by the Court in a writ petition filed by the second respondent.

The petitioner stated that planning permission had been obtained and that applications for regularisation had subsequently been filed and fees paid.

1. Whether the impugned notice alleging unauthorised construction should be quashed

2. Whether the petitioner could pursue the regularisation applications or other remedies available under the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971

The Court referred to Sections 79 and 80-A of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 as remedies available to the petitioner, alongside pursuing the regularisation applications before the competent authority or Appellate Authority, as applicable.

The Court did not set out or apply any further statutory test, legal precedent, or substantive rule on the validity of the notice or the eligibility of the construction for regularisation.

The petitioner represented that regularisation applications had been filed and the requisite fees paid. In light of that submission, the Court permitted the petitioner to pursue the applications or avail the statutory remedies.

It expressly refrained from deciding the merits of the impugned notices, and therefore did not determine whether the construction was unauthorised or whether the notices were legally valid.

It granted liberty to the petitioner to pursue the regularisation applications before the competent authority or Appellate Authority, as applicable, or to avail remedies under Sections 79 and 80-A of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971. The writ petitions were disposed of without costs, and the connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.