Pollachi Building-Plan Petitioners Get Four More Months To Fix Deviations Or Face Demolition: Madras HC

The batch comprised writ petitions concerning alleged unauthorised constructions and deviations from approved building plans.

The petitions challenged show-cause notices, lock-and-seal notices and enforcement action under the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971; some were filed while statutory appeals under Section 80A were pending, while others challenged final orders made in those appeals.

Petitioners raised concerns including inadequate surveys and denial of an opportunity to be heard; the State maintained that enforcement procedures had been followed and that appeals would be considered after hearing the parties.

An expert committee had been constituted pursuant to interim orders, and the Government had issued G.O.Ms.No.66 dated 25 April 2025 for the committee’s work.

Sections 56 and 57 of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 empower the competent authorities to address unauthorised development and stop such development; Section 80A provides a statutory appeal to the Government against the specified sealing actions under Section 56(2-A) or Section 57(4), and empowers the Government to make interim orders.

The statutory scheme requires the competent authority to identify alleged violations, provide the owner or occupier an opportunity to respond, and follow the prescribed procedure before enforcement; the rules of natural justice must be observed.

The High Court’s judicial-review jurisdiction is not ordinarily the forum for resolving disputed facts about construction and plan deviations; a show-cause or lock-and-seal notice does not, by itself, warrant a writ petition, save where lack of jurisdiction or mala fides is alleged. For a mala fides allegation, the officer concerned must be impleaded personally.

The expert committee may assist, but is not a competent statutory authority.

The Court treated the petitions as raising a common issue of enforcement concerning alleged unauthorised construction and plan deviations.

Determining those matters would require examination of approved plans, surveys, documents and evidence, which the original authority and the Section 80A appellate authority are equipped to undertake after hearing the parties; the writ court should not decide such disputed facts in the first instance.

The statutory appeal therefore remained the appropriate route for challenges to qualifying sealing orders, while no Section 80A appeal lay against a show-cause notice alone.

The committee’s work could assist the competent authorities but could not displace their statutory responsibility.

For cases in which final Section 80A orders had already been made, the Court noted that the Government had considered field reports and the parties’ cases, and that the petitioners principally sought further time to rectify the deviations.

Petitioners challenging show-cause notices may submit explanations to the competent authority; those challenging lock-and-seal notices may appeal under Section 80A, but no such appeal lies against a show-cause notice alone.

Petitioners with pending Section 80A appeals may present their factual and legal grounds, and the Government must hear the parties and decide expeditiously; it may also make interim orders under Section 80A(3).

Where final Section 80A orders had been challenged, competent authorities may continue enforcement in accordance with the Act and Rules.

The time allowed by the Government for rectification was extended by four months from the date of judgment; if violations were not rectified, the authorities were directed to complete enforcement, including demolition of unauthorised construction or deviations and recovery of costs, following the prescribed procedures.

No costs were awarded.