S.K.Muthughavi v. The Greater Chennai Corporation

ORDER (Order of the Court was made by Dr.G.Jayachandran J.) The petitioner herein, who had purchased a building constructed contrary to the planning permission, subsequently sought demolition and reconstruction. The existing planning permission was only for the ground floor. However, under the guise of demolition and reconstruction, the petitioner constructed a ground plus two floors structure, prompting the authorities to issue a notice on

19.12.2025 to discontinue further construction.

¶2Since the petitioner failed to comply with the requirements specified under Section 56, the Assistant Engineer, Greater Chennai Corporation, issued a notice to the petitioner on 22.07.2026, directing the petitioner to remove the movable and immovable properties from the unauthorized structure to facilitate the Corporation to lock and seal of the premises without any hindrance.

¶3Challenging the said notice, the present writ petition has been filed on the ground that the lock and seal notice was issued by the authorities without proper appreciation of records. The petitioner contends that the property was purchased with land and building constructed in accordance with the planning permission according to the vendor and later only renovation of the existing building was carried out.

¶4However, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Corporation submitted that the planning permission obtained by the Page3 of 5 predecessor-in-title was only for the ground floor, as evidenced by the planning permission annexed to the typed set of papers. The building, as it stands now, comprises a ground floor of 1330.85 sq.ft., a first floor of 1330.85 sq.ft., and a second floor of 854.64 sq.ft.

¶5Considering the records and submissions, we find that lock and seal notice does not suffer any infirmity. If the petitioner wants to retain the building in accordance with the sanctioned plan, it is open to him to request to the authorities to permit him to rectify the building in consonance with the planning permission or else he may seek a revised planning permission, which shall be considered in accordance with law. The petitioner shall either rectify the building as per the approved plan or seek a revised planning permission. If the petitioner fails to do either within a period of seven (7) days from today, the respondents shall proceed with lock and seal.

¶6With the above directions, this Writ Petition stands disposed of. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs. (Dr.G.J.,J.) (R.K.M.,J.) 31-07-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Note: Issue Today [31.07.2026] rpl Page4 of 5 To

1.The Commissioner, The Greater Chennai Corporation, Rippon Building, Chennai-600 003.

¶2The Assistant Engineer, Div. -153, Unit-34, Zone-11, Greater Chennai Corporation, Ramasamy Nagar, 1st Street, Porur, Chennai-600 116. WPoNo.o30476oofo2026 DR.G.JAYACHANDRANoJ. and R.KALAIMATHIoJ. rpl WritoPetitionoNo.o30476oofo2026 and W.M.P.No.33458oofo2026 31-07-2026 Page5oofo5

Page1 of 5 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 31-07-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE DR JUSTICE G. JAYACHANDRAN AND THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE R. KALAIMATHI Writ Petition No. 30476 of 2026 and W.M.P.No.33458 of 2026 S.K.Muthughavi ..Petitioner Vs 1. The Greater Chennai Corporation Represented by its Commissioner, Rippon Building, Chennai-600 003. 2. Assistant Engineer, Div. -153, Unit-34, Zone-11, Greater Chennai Corporation, Ramasamy Nagar, 1st Street, Porur, Chennai-600 116. ..Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for records of the impugned order passed Z.OXI.C. No.AE.153/SP/2026 dated 22.07.2026 passed by the 2n Respondent and quash the same and directing the respondents No.1 and 2 from any way giving any hindrance to the petitioner and pass For Petitioner: Mr. T.I.Ramanadhan For Respondents: Ms.S.Vanitha Joice Rani Standing Counsel Page2 of 5