Road-Encroaching Balcony, Missing Setbacks: Madras HC Gives Chennai Builder 2 Weeks To Remove Deviations Or Face Demolition Of Unauthorised Portions

In brief

The question

1. Whether the Form-V notice directing discontinuance of the petitioner’s ongoing construction should be quashed and the petitioner permitted to complete the building.

The court held

The Court dismissed the writ petition and made no order as to costs.

It also directed

It directed the Greater Chennai Corporation to take enforcement action in accordance with the CMDA compliance report.

The petitioner was given two weeks to correct the deviations by demolishing the unauthorised portions and restoring the building to the approved plan; failing compliance, the Corporation was directed to demolish the deviated and unauthorised portions, restore the building as approved, and recover the cost following due procedure.

01Facts

The petitioner challenged a Form-V notice dated 7 July 2026 directing discontinuance of unauthorised development at his building and sought permission to complete construction.

p. 1

The notice followed a neighbouring owner’s complaint, a Form-I notice requiring production of documents, and a site inspection on 25 June 2026.

p. 2

The inspection recorded, among other matters, construction without required setbacks, a non-compliant corner splay, and a balcony encroaching on the road.

p. 3

After the petitioner denied any deviation, the Court directed CMDA to file a report; CMDA submitted plans, photographs, an inspection sketch, and a compliance report identifying deviations from the approved plan.

pp. 3–4

02Issues

i.1. Whether the Form-V notice directing discontinuance of the petitioner’s ongoing construction should be quashed and the petitioner permitted to complete the building.

pp. 1–2, 4

ii.2. Whether the authorities should proceed with enforcement action in light of the inspection and compliance reports identifying deviations from the approved plan.

pp. 4–5

03Law Applied

The petition was brought under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a certiorarified mandamus.

p. 1

The judgment does not identify or discuss any particular statute, regulation, or precedent governing the alleged planning violations.

It directs the Corporation to take enforcement action in accordance with the applicable procedures and permits the petitioner to restore the building to the approved plan.

pp. 4–5

04Reasoning

The Court considered the petitioner’s denial of violations against the inspection materials and CMDA’s compliance report, which showed deviations from the sanctioned building plan.

pp. 3–4

On that record, it found no basis to quash the Form-V notice or permit construction to continue as proposed.

pp. 4–5

It directed the Corporation to proceed with enforcement, while allowing the petitioner an opportunity to remove the unauthorised portions and restore the building in conformity with the approved plan.

pp. 4–5