{"id":2848,"date":"2025-03-11T16:07:15","date_gmt":"2025-03-11T10:37:15","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/?p=2848"},"modified":"2025-03-12T10:06:03","modified_gmt":"2025-03-12T04:36:03","slug":"madras-hc-upholds-demolition-of-unauthorized-construction-directs-strict-action-by-authorities","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/madras-hc-upholds-demolition-of-unauthorized-construction-directs-strict-action-by-authorities\/","title":{"rendered":"Madras HC Upholds Demolition of Unauthorized Construction, Directs Strict Action by Authorities"},"content":{"rendered":"

M\/s Janpriya Builders\u00a0\u00a0 <\/strong>[Petitioner] Vs. <\/strong>The Commissioner\u00a0 \u00a0[<\/strong>Respondents]<\/h1>\n

W.P.No.17011 of 2024<\/p>\n

(THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM and THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR)<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

The Madras High Court recently dismissed a writ petition filed by a construction company challenging the order of the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority (CMDA) directing the removal of an unauthorized structure. The court reiterated that unauthorized constructions should not be permitted to remain and that authorities must take appropriate action upon receiving information or complaints from any individual.<\/p>\n

A Division Bench comprising Justice S.M. Subramaniam and Justice K. Rajasekar emphasized that once the Supreme Court has declared the law, courts should not show misplaced sympathy merely because an individual or entity has made financial investments in the illegal construction. The case was argued by Advocate Ashok Menon on behalf of the petitioner, while Advocates A. Arun Babu and R. Sivakumar appeared for the respondents. The petitioner, a construction company, was initially granted planning permission for a commercial building with a basement, ground floor, mezzanine floor, and three additional floors. However, in violation of the approved plan, the company proceeded to construct a building comprising a basement, ground floor, eight additional floors, and partial construction of a ninth and tenth floor. These unauthorized structures were built in a busy commercial area of Chennai.<\/p>\n

Despite multiple applications to the CMDA for regularization, the requests were repeatedly denied, as such regularization was deemed legally infeasible. The CMDA subsequently issued a notice for locking, sealing, and demolition of the unauthorized portions of the building. Following this, the petitioner filed an appeal under Section 80-A of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act before the government, but this too was rejected. The court noted that builders and contractors continue to engage in illegal construction under the assumption that they can avoid demolition by filing regularization applications. It criticized the large-scale collusion of CMDA officials and other authorities, whose inaction and negligence embolden builders to violate planning regulations.<\/p>\n

The bench further observed that the petitioner\u2019s first application for regularization was rejected in 2007, and a subsequent application was rejected in 2014. Neither of these rejections was challenged. The appeal under Section 80-A was also unsuccessful, and the CMDA\u2019s latest action in 2023, directing the removal of unauthorized structures, was the only decision being contested in the current writ petition. Given that the unauthorized portions had already been locked and sealed, the court ruled that there was no obstacle preventing the CMDA from proceeding with the demolition. It directed the authorities to demolish the unauthorized structures within eight weeks, while retaining the approved portions of the building. Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed, reinforcing the principle that unauthorized constructions should not be tolerated and that authorities have a duty to act against such violations.<\/p>\n\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

M\/s Janpriya Builders\u00a0\u00a0 [Petitioner] Vs. The Commissioner\u00a0 \u00a0[Respondents] W.P.No.17011 of 2024 (THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM and THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR)   The Madras High Court recently dismissed a writ petition filed by a construction company challenging the order of the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority (CMDA) directing the removal of an unauthorized structure. The court reiterated […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":2850,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[12],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2848","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-judgement"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2848","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2848"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2848\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2888,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2848\/revisions\/2888"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/2850"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2848"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2848"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2848"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}