UNAUTHORIZED EXTENSION OF COMMERCIAL PREMISES ONTO PUBLIC PATHWAYS CONSTITUTES ILLEGAL ENCROACHMENT AND IS NOT PROTECTED UNDER LOCAL BODY STATUTES.

The petitioner, a lessee of the Sivakasi City Municipal Corporation operating "Hotel Thirumalai" in Block II of the Sivakasi Bus Stand, erected a substantial sunshade/shed structure over the public platform in front of his shop.

On June 16, 2026, the 1st Respondent issued an eviction notice (Na. Ka. 08381/2025/A4) directing the removal of the structure within ten days.

The petitioner challenged this notice via a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, contending that the structure was intended to protect the public from sunlight and rain, and that he had applied for permission which was still pending.

Photographs presented to the court revealed the structure utilized iron beams and doors, effectively converting the public pathway into an extension of the hotel for commercial use.

1. Whether the sunshade/shelter erected by the petitioner constitutes an unauthorized and illegal encroachment on public land.

2. Whether the eviction notice issued by the 1st Respondent satisfied the procedural requirements of the Tamil Nadu Urban and Local Bodies Act, 1998.

The court primarily applied Section 128(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Urban and Local Bodies Act, 1998, which empowers the Commissioner to remove any permanent or temporary immovable structure encroaching upon a street or public place belonging to the municipality.

Section 128(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Urban and Local Bodies Act, 1998 requires the issuance of a show-cause notice returnable within seven days and the consideration of any representations filed within that period before passing final orders.

The Court found that the petitioner’s structure was not a mere welfare measure for passengers but a total blockage of the free usage of the platform for "effective business use".

By installing iron beams, doors, and permanent sheets, the petitioner created an unauthorized construction that hindered pedestrian flow and allowed for additional commercial stalls.

Regarding the petitioner's claim of protection under Section 128(1)(b), the Court noted that while the statute mandates a seven-day notice period, the 1st Respondent had provided a more generous ten-day period for removal.

The Court rejected the argument that the pending application for permission justified the construction, stating that the petitioner was obligated to wait for a response before proceeding.

The Court characterized the extension as an illegal advantage for the petitioner’s business rather than a public service.

It ruled that the 1st Respondent acted within its legal authority and complied with the principles of natural justice by providing adequate notice.

Consequently, the Court dismissed the writ petition and the connected miscellaneous petition, refusing to grant the relief sought or to permit the continued existence of the unauthorized structure.