Mohamed Farook v. The Commissioner

O R D E R

¶1The petitioner challenges the impugned order dated 22.01.2026 issued by the first respondent.

¶2By the said order, building permission was granted to the third respondent to put up a commercial building on the subject property. The petitioner claims to be the owner in possession of a portion of the said property, where he is running a puncture shop. The grievance of the petitioner is that the third respondent has demolished the entire building, except the portion allegedly occupied by the petitioner, without obtaining permission under Section 133(5) of the Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Act, 1998.

¶3Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side.

¶4It is seen that the petitioner had earlier approached this Court in W.P.

(MD) No.2265 of 2026 seeking restoration of power supply that had been disconnected. This Court, by order dated 24.02.2026, dismissed the said writ petition holding that the third respondent had filed an online application seeking permission for demolition of the building and, upon payment of the necessary charges, such permission had been granted. It was further observed that the order granting demolition permission had not been challenged and that nearly 90% of the building had already been demolished pursuant to the permission granted by the Corporation. This clearly indicates that the demolition had been carried out pursuant to the permission granted by the Corporation under Section 133 of the Act.

¶5Even assuming that no permission had been obtained for demolition, the petitioner has no locus standi to challenge the impugned order in these proceedings. The petitioner has already filed a civil suit seeking permanent injunction, and in the said suit an application for temporary injunction was also filed. The said application came to be dismissed on

27.02.2026.

¶6The property belongs to the third respondent as claimed by him , and the petitioner claims to be in owner in occupation of a portion of the property. The petitioner asserts that 10% of the property belongs to him. Whether such a portion indeed belongs to the petitioner is a matter that requires adjudication before the competent civil court. This Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot enter into disputed questions of fact of this nature.

¶7In view of the above, this Writ Petition stands dismissed, reserving liberty to the petitioner to agitate his rights in the pending civil suit before the jurisdictional civil court. The trial court shall adjudicate the rights of the parties independently and without being influenced by any of the observations made in this order or in the order passed by this Court in W.P.(MD) No.2265 of 2026 dated 24.02.2026. All the contentions of the parties are left open. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

Index :Yes / No

05.03.2026 Internet :Yes / No NCC :Yes / No To

1.The Commissioner, Madurai Corporation, Madurai.

2.The Executive Engineer (Planning), Madurai City Municipal Corporation, Madurai - 625 020.

HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR, J.

cmr

05.03.2026

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 05.03.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR and W.M.P.(MD)No.5055 of 2026 Mohamed Farook ... Petitioner vs. 1.The Commissioner, Madurai Corporation, Madurai. 2.The Executive Engineer (Planning), Madurai City Municipal Corporation, Madurai - 625 020. 3.Abdul Jabbar ... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the impugned order dated 22.01.2026 bearing construction Permission. No.115/BL/2026/00028 issued by the Respondent No.1 and quash the same as illegal and consequently to direct the Respondent No.1 to consider the petitioner's representation dated 10.02.2026. For Petitioner :Mr.SMA.Jinnah For R1 and R2 :Ms.S.Devasena For R3 :Mr.R.J.Karthick *****