Planning permission cannot be revoked solely for lack of a neighbour’s NOC without independent structural-safety assessment.

The petitioners obtained planning permission and building approval on 17 October 2025 to demolish and reconstruct their property.

The adjoining owner objected, citing a common wall, structural stability and covenants in the original TNHB sale deed requiring the other owners’ consent before alteration.

The petitioners had also submitted an affidavit undertaking to obtain the adjoining owner’s NOC and defer demolition until then.

After issuing a show-cause notice, the Corporation revoked the permission on 6 February 2026.

Competing technical reports were before the Court, but the Court considered them inadequate to resolve the safety question.

Whether the Corporation could revoke planning permission under Section 54 based on the absence of the adjoining owner’s NOC or alleged breach of the petitioners’ undertaking, without an independent determination of the statutory grounds for revocation.

Whether the disputed structural-safety consequences of the proposed demolition and reconstruction could be determined on the competing reports before the Court, or required an independent technical assessment.

Whether the validity or enforceability of the sale-deed covenants and the parties’ rights under Section 40 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, should be decided in the writ proceedings.

Section 54(1) of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 permits revocation or modification of planning permission, after an opportunity of hearing, only for statutory purposes and on relevant considerations; it does not authorize revocation merely because neighbouring owners are in dispute.

Rule 11 of the Tamil Nadu Combined Development and Building Rules, 2019 provides that planning permission does not determine title, ownership, easement rights or structural matters; Rule 6(10), as considered in R. Umadevi v. The Commissioner, Greater Chennai Corporation, treats co-owner consent or an NOC as not generally mandatory, though further particulars may be sought where necessary.

Section 40 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 concerns the enforceability of certain obligations attached to property against a transferee with notice; disputed covenant rights were left for civil adjudication.

K.D. Sharma v. Steel Authority of India Ltd., (2008) 12 SCC 481, states the duty of a litigant invoking writ jurisdiction to disclose material facts and approach the Court candidly.

The Court held that the undertaking and the private covenants could be relevant to the parties’ civil rights, but neither could enlarge the Corporation’s statutory power under Section 54 or independently justify revocation.

The authority had to consider the petitioners’ material and independently assess whether the proposed work presented a genuine structural or safety concern; the competing reports, based on differing and inadequate inspections, did not enable the Court to resolve that technical question.

The appropriate course was therefore to obtain an independent assessment from IIT Madras and require the Corporation to reconsider the permission on the technical evidence and the parties’ submissions, without determining the private covenant dispute.

The petitioners were barred from demolition or structural work pending a fresh decision.

The Corporation was directed to obtain an IIT Madras report following inspection of both properties, provide the parties an opportunity to submit material and objections, and pass a reasoned decision under Section 54 within eight weeks of receipt of the order, subject to the time required for inspection and preparation of the report.

The validity and enforceability of the sale-deed covenants, rights under Section 40, and legal consequences of the undertaking were left open for determination by the competent civil court.

No order as to costs.