Supreme Court of India· 22 August 2026
Can a High Court order demolition while the regularisation challenge is pending in the Supreme Court?
G. Sathyanarayana Bothra and Others v. M.D. Lokeswari and Another
2026 INSC 912 · CIVIL APPEAL NO.10045 OF 2026
Coram: Atul S. Chandurkar; Ujjal Bhuyan
Answer
Not where it has itself directed the parties to await that decision. The issue arising out of the subject Government Orders and Section 113-C of the Act of 1971 is still pending before this Court, and the authority stood restrained from taking any coercive steps; in that situation the High Court was not justified in directing the CMDA to demolish the unauthorised constructions within eight weeks.
Headnote
Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 — s.113-C — Regularisation of unauthorised construction — Coercive steps — Inconsistent orders —
Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 — s.113-C — Regularisation issue pending before this Court —
Held: Where the challenge to the regularisation Government Orders is still pending before this Court and the parties stand directed to await that decision, a direction to demolish is not justified. (¶10)
Writ jurisdiction — Order contrary to the court’s own earlier order — Same subject matter —
Held further: A High Court deciding later proceedings must take into consideration its own earlier order restraining coercive steps against the same parties; an order inconsistent with it is unsustainable in law. Appeal allowed. (¶10, 11)
In the Court's own words
Paragraph 10In 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.
Acts & Sections
s.113-C Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.
Read the full text of G. Sathyanarayana Bothra and Others v. M.D. Lokeswari and Another — and get the Supreme Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.
Create my free accountFree forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India
Open the full judgment →