Judgment · High Court
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
Till the revision petition is disposed of, no coercive action shall be taken
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 44. If such a petition is filed within two weeks, it shall be disposed of by the first respondent on merits and in accordance with law, within a period https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No.20708 of 2026__________Page3 of 4of six months thereafter. Till the revision petition is disposed…
Judgment
WP No.20708 of 2026__________Page1 of 4IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 29-05-2026CORAMTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHANandTHE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANANWP No.20708 of 2026and WMP No.22314 of 2026A.Senthilkumar… Petitioner-vs-1.State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. By its Principal Secretary, Housing and Urban Development Department, Secretariat, Chennai 600 009.
Assistant Joint Director of Town and Country Planning, Town and Country Planning Office, FCI Road, Gandhinagar, Ganapathy, Coimbatore 641 004.
Commissioner/Member Secretary, Pollachi Local Planning Authority, Pollachi Municipality, Pollachi, Coimbatore District 642 001.… RespondentsPetition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records in Impugned Lock and Seal Order dated 17.04.2026 bearing Notice No.06/2024/F-1 issued by the 3rd respondent and quash the same and consequently, direct the respondents not to take any coercive actions against the petitioner’s land and building comprised in Town and Survey Ward No.E, Block No.4, comprised in T.S.No.153/1A, Kovai Road, Door No.85, https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No.20708 of 2026__________Page2 of 4Pollachi Village, Coimbatore District, measuring an extent of 43,438 sq.ft. For Petitioner: Mr.N.L.RajahSenior Counselfor Mr.K.R.Arun ShabariFor Respondents: Mr.Mohd. Fayaz AliGovt. Counselfor RR 1 and 2* * * * *ORDER(Order of the Court was made by G.R.Swaminathan, J.)Heard both sides.2. The petitioner challenges the lock and seal order dated 17.04.2026 issued by the Local Body (Respondent No.3). The petitioner has remedy of filing revision under Section 80-A of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971, against the said order.3. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner would be filing the said revision before the first respondent within two weeks from today.
Operative part
If such a petition is filed within two weeks, it shall be disposed of by the first respondent on merits and in accordance with law, within a period https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No.20708 of 2026__________Page3 of 4of six months thereafter. Till the revision petition is disposed of, no coercive action shall be taken. In other words, the impugned order shall be kept in abeyance till then. If the petitioner fails to file such revision within two weeks, the benefit of this order will stand automatically recalled. It is made clear that we have not gone into the merits of the matter. This writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition stands closed. (G.R.S., J.)(V.L.N., J.)29-05-2026Index: Yes/NoSpeaking/Non-speaking orderNeutral Citation: Yes/NosraTo1.The Principal Secretary, Govt. of Tamil Nadu, Housing and Urban Development Department, Secretariat, Chennai 600 009.2.The Assistant Joint Director of Town and Country Planning, Town and Country Planning Office, FCI Road, Gandhinagar, Ganapathy, Coimbatore 641 004.3.The Commissioner/Member Secretary, Pollachi Local Planning Authority, Pollachi Municipality, Pollachi, Coimbatore District 642 001. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No.20708 of 2026__________Page4 of 4G.R.Swaminathan, J. andV.Lakshminarayanan, J.(sra)WP No.20708 of202629.05.2026
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Till the revision petition is disposed of, no coercive action shall be taken
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226; Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.