Can a High Court order demolition while the regularisation challenge is pending in the Supreme Court?

The appellants and the first respondent are residents of a building known as ‘Indira Arcade’. While the appellants have purchased portion of area on the ground floor to the third floor as well as a portion on the fourth floor, pursuant to a Memorandum of Understanding with M/s Indira Foundations Private Limited, the first respondent being the daughter of the owner of the plot on which the building was erected occupies a portion on the second floor of the said building. The grievance of the first respondent is with regard to excess construction/unauthorised construction/ deviations effected at the instance of the appellants on the portions owned by them and also in the building. A direction having been issued by the Division Bench of the Madras High Court[^1] to the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority[^2], the second respondent, to remove the unauthorised constructions/deviations by the order dated 28.04.2025 in the writ petition preferred by the first respondent, the appellants, being aggrieved have challenged the said order.

It is not necessary to refer to various factual aspects. Suffice it to state that initially, the father of the first respondent had filed Writ Petition No.21661/2017 before the High Court with a prayer for issuance of a direction to the CMDA to consider his representation dated 07.07.2017 in the matter of unauthorised construction undertaken by the appellants. By the order dated 28.03.2018, the appellants were directed to rectify the defects in respect of violated portions of the building by 08.06.2018. The writ petition was disposed of but for the purposes of reporting compliance, it was directed to be listed on 22.06.2018. The appellants on 06.06.2018 moved an application for regularisation of the deviations in question. The regularisation was sought under Section 113-C of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971[^3] read with Government Order[^4] Nos.110 and 111 dated 22.06.2017.

When the aforesaid writ petition was considered for reporting compliance, an undertaking was filed on behalf of the appellants indicating the action taken by them pursuant to the earlier order. The relevant portion of the order of the High Court dated 28.06.2018 reads as under:

The appellants were aggrieved by the report/order dated 09.08.2023 issued by the CMDA and, hence, they challenged the aforesaid report/order in Writ Petition No.25737/2023. The High Court on 27.09.2023 allowed the writ petition, since the larger issue with regard to the scope of regularisation of unauthorised constructions under the G.O.s as well as the prayer for regularisation were pending. The relevant portion of the order dated 27.09.2023 reads as under:

At this stage, it would be necessary to state that under Section 113-C of the Act of 1971, a provision for seeking regularisation of unauthorised construction has been made, subject to complying with necessary requirements. The State Government has issued various Government Orders in consonance with Section 113-C of the Act of 1971. The Division Bench of the High Court in C. Prabhakaran vs. Dharmendra Pratap Yadav & Ors.5 by its order dated 06.02.2019 held G.O. Nos.110 and 111 dated 22.06.2017 to be invalid. As a result, it was not permissible to seek regularisation under the said G.O.s. It may be stated that the aforesaid order is the subject matter of the challenge before this Court in M/s Billroth Hospital Ltd. vs. The State of Tamil Nadu[^6] at the behest of the CMDA. Various other civil appeals raising a similar challenge are pending.

The High Court taking note of the pendency of the aforesaid litigation disposed of various writ petitions wherein the issue of regularisation of unauthorised construction under the said G.O.s was the subject matter. The High Court directed that since the issue was pending before this Court, the parties would be bound by the orders that would be passed in the pending proceedings before this Court. The order dated 27.09.2023 referred to hereinabove as passed by the Division Bench is also on similar lines. As a result of this order, to which the appellants and the CMDA were parties, it was restrained from taking any coercive steps against the appellants till the aforesaid pending issues were decided. 5 Contempt Petition No. 1087 of 2017

Be that as it may, the first respondent continued her pursuit of seeking removal of unauthorised constructions/deviations undertaken at the instance of the appellants. She, therefore, on 31.01.2024, made a fresh representation to the CMDA calling upon it to take necessary action on the notice dated 10.11.2023 issued by it under Form IV to the appellants. The representation not having been considered, the first respondent filed Writ Petition No.12779/2024 with a prayer for a direction to the CMDA to consider her representation and take further steps in the matter. Paragraphs 15 to 17 of her affidavit indicate knowledge as regards pendency of the application for regularisation. The said paragraphs read as under:

The Division Bench by its order dated 28.04.2025 observed that it was not permissible to regularise any unauthorised construction nor would pendency of an application for regularisation give a ground for not taking any action against such unauthorised construction. It observed that notwithstanding the pendency of the regularisation application, action ought to be taken to remove the unauthorised portions, as the application for regularisation itself was not maintainable. It is this order that is impugned in the present appeal.

We have heard Mr. Balaji Srinivasan, learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. G. Anto Prince, learned counsel for the first respondent and Ms. Jayasree Narasimhan, learned counsel for the second respondent. We have also perused the written submissions placed on record.

In our view, the CMDA was governed by the order dated 27.09.2023 passed by the High Court in Writ Petition No.25737/2023 preferred by the appellants inasmuch as it was directed not to take any coercive steps against the appellants in view of pendency of the issues pertaining to regularisation before this Court. The said issue arising out of the subject G.O.s and Section 113-C of the Act of 1971 is still pending. In such a situation, the High Court while deciding the present proceedings ought to have taken into consideration its earlier order dated 27.09.2023 passed in the writ petition preferred by the appellants. Without considering the same and despite pendency of the appellants’ regularisation application, a direction to take coercive steps and remove the unauthorised construction has been issued. This has resulted in passing of inconsistent orders with regard to the same subject matter qua the appellants and CMDA. The issue pertaining to regularisation of unauthorised constructions not having been finally resolved and the parties having been directed to await decision in the pending proceedings, in our view, the High Court was not justified in issuing a direction to the CMDA to demolish the unauthorised constructions/deviations within a period of eight weeks from the date of its order. We, therefore, find that the impugned order is unsustainable in law being contrary to its earlier order dated 27.09.2023 passed in Writ Petition No.25737/2023.

In the light of this position on record, the impugned order dated 28.04.2025 passed in Writ Petition No.12779/2024 is set aside. It is directed that the appellants, the CMDA and the second respondent would be governed by the order dated 27.09.2023 passed in Writ Petition No.25737/2023. The appellants and the respondents would be at liberty to take further steps after the issue of regularisation is decided in the pending civil appeals before this Court. In the circumstances of the case, status quo shall be maintained by the parties with regard to the constructions undertaken at the building till the pending issues are decided. The Civil Appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Pending Interlocutory Application shall stand disposed of. …...………………………..J. [ UJJAL BHUYAN ] .…..………………………..J. [ATUL S. CHANDURKAR] NEW DELHI, AUGUST 22, 2026.