Background
The dispute concerns alleged excess/unauthorised constructions and deviations in the building ‘Indira Arcade’ in Chennai. The appellants (owners of portions from ground to fourth floor) and the first respondent (daughter of the plot owner, occupying a second-floor portion) are co-residents.
Earlier proceedings led to the appellants applying for regularisation under Section 113-C of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 read with G.O. Nos. 110 & 111 dated 22.06.2017. A Division Bench of the Madras High Court, by order dated 27.09.2023 in the appellants’ writ petition, restrained the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority (CMDA) from taking coercive steps, noting that the larger issue of validity of the G.Os and regularisation was pending before the Supreme Court (including in M/s Billroth Hospital Ltd. and connected matters).
Despite this, the first respondent pursued further representations. By the impugned order dated 28.04.2025 in W.P. No. 12779/2024, another Division Bench directed the CMDA to remove the unauthorised constructions/deviations within eight weeks, holding that regularisation applications under the invalidated G.Os were not maintainable and that pendency of such applications could not stall enforcement action.
Supreme Court’s Ruling
Appeal allowed. Impugned order set aside.
Key Holdings:
- The CMDA remained bound by the High Court’s earlier order dated 27.09.2023, which expressly restrained coercive action pending decision of the regularisation issues before the Supreme Court.
- The High Court, while passing the impugned order, failed to consider its own prior restraint order to which both the appellants and CMDA were parties. This resulted in inconsistent directions on the same subject matter.
- Since the validity of the relevant G.Os and the scope of regularisation under Section 113-C remain pending before the Supreme Court, a direction for immediate demolition was not justified.
Directions
- Parties (appellants, CMDA and first respondent) shall be governed by the order dated 27.09.2023.
- Status quo to be maintained with regard to the constructions till the pending regularisation issues are decided.
- Parties at liberty to take further steps after the Supreme Court decides the pending civil appeals on regularisation.
- No costs.
Significance
The judgment underscores judicial consistency and the need to respect interim arrangements already put in place pending resolution of larger questions of law concerning regularisation of unauthorised constructions. It prevents conflicting High Court orders from creating uncertainty for parties and development authorities.
Case Details:
Case Title: G. Sathyanarayana Bothra & Ors. v. M.D. Lokeswari & Anr.
Civil Appeal No. 10045 of 2026
Bench: Justices Ujjal Bhuyan & Atul S. Chandurkar
Date: 22 August 2026
Citation: 2026 INSC 912
Click HERE for full Judgment.
