Authority: Madras High Court, Bench of Dr. G. Jayachandran and Justice N. Mala

Order Date: 15-07-2026

Case Overview

  • Petitioner: S. Ammu @ Sarala Marget, residing at Door No.56/4, Police Commissioner Office Road, Egmore, Chennai‑600 008.
  • Respondents: 1) Executive Engineer Zone‑V, Greater Chennai Corporation; 2) Executive Engineer Zone‑V, Greater Chennai Corporation; 3) Assistant Engineer Zone‑V, Division‑61, Greater Chennai Corporation; 4) S. Muthusamy (private respondent).
  • The petitioner challenged a demolition notice (Notice No. Dn/61/53/2025 dated 12.01.2026) issued by the 2nd respondent under Section 56 of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971, seeking a writ of certiorari and mandamus to quash the notice and prevent demolition of her house.
  • The petitioner claimed absolute ownership of the building, stating her family had possessed the structure for more than 150 years.
  • Earlier proceedings: On 16.06.2025 a demolition notice was issued; the petitioner, along with two others, filed WP No.28986/2025 seeking relief. The First Bench allowed the petitioners to submit a detailed representation to the 2nd respondent within ten days.
  • On 31.12.2025, a Form‑2 inspection notice was issued, fixing 05.01.2026 for inspection. After inspection, the corporation issued a Form‑3 notice on 12.01.2026 directing the petitioner to discontinue use of the building within 30 days and to remove the structure, citing lack of planning permission.
  • The petitioner failed to comply; a reminder notice was issued on 18.06.2026 warning of lock‑and‑seal action if the structure was not vacated.
  • The learned standing counsel for respondents 1‑3 argued the petitioner had not presented a clean case and that due process had been afforded.
  • The court observed that the structure was admittedly without planning permission and that the corporation had provided sufficient opportunity, including inspection and notice, before issuing the lock‑and‑seal directive.

Final Outcome

  • The writ petition (WP No.27237/2026) is dismissed.
  • No costs are awarded.
  • All connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

Topics: Urban Planning, Municipal Demolition, Legal Dispute