Unauthorised building deviations must be rectified or demolished to conform to the approved plan.

The petitioner challenged the Government’s order under Section 80-A of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971, concerning alleged unauthorised and deviated construction at Plot Nos. 1A and 1B, LIC Nagar, Pallikaranai.

Following an inspection, the Greater Chennai Corporation reported deviations including a 0.10 sq. m. shortfall in the northern side setback and excess construction area on the first and second floors.

On the petitioner’s appeal, the Government directed the Corporation to issue a fresh Form IV notice and prescribed steps for obtaining a demolition plan, rectification or revised approval, and subsequent enforcement in case of non-compliance.

The petitioner then sought to quash that order and obtain consideration of a revised building plan under the Tamil Nadu Combined Development and Building Rules, 2019.

Whether the Government’s order under Section 80-A, directing steps to rectify the deviations and address the unauthorised construction, warranted interference under Article 226.

Whether the petitioner was entitled to seek consideration of a revised plan instead of complying with the directions to rectify the deviations and demolish unauthorised portions.

The Court considered Section 80-A of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971, under which the petitioner had appealed to the Government against enforcement action.

It also referred to the Tamil Nadu Combined Development and Building Rules, 2019, as the applicable framework for any revised approval, and to G.O. (Ms.) No. 195, Housing Department, dated 5 November 2022, cited in the Government’s directions concerning action against unauthorised or deviated buildings.

The Court applied the principle that identified deviations must be rectified in accordance with the sanctioned plan and applicable planning rules; failure to comply may result in enforcement action, subject to due procedure.

The Corporation’s inspection identified deviations from the approved plan, and the Government had considered the parties’ submissions and directed a process for notice, rectification, or revised approval.

The Court accepted the Corporation’s findings and the Government’s consideration of the matter, concluding that the petitioner’s proposal to take steps for rectification did not justify setting aside the Government’s order.

It therefore held that the petitioner was bound to rectify the deviations and demolish unauthorised construction as directed.

It granted the petitioner two months from receipt of the order to rectify the deviations and demolish the unauthorised portions, restoring the building in accordance with the Corporation’s approved plan.

If the petitioner failed to comply, the Corporation was directed to demolish the unauthorised portions and recover the costs from the petitioner, following due procedure.