The Supreme Court, in a bench comprising Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar, has set aside a Division Bench order of the Madras High Court that directed the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority (CMDA) to demolish alleged unauthorized constructions in a building named ‘Indira Arcade’. The apex court held that the High Court erred in ordering coercive demolition steps while its own earlier protection order directing the authority to await the Supreme Court’s verdict on the regularisation framework was still operationally binding on the parties.
Background of the Case
The legal dispute involves occupants of a building named ‘Indira Arcade’. The appellants, G. Sathyanarayana Bothra and others, purchased commercial spaces spanning the ground floor to the third floor, as well as a portion of the fourth floor, pursuant to a Memorandum of Understanding with M/s Indira Foundations Private Limited. The first respondent, M.D. Lokeswari, who is the daughter of the plot owner, occupies a portion on the second floor and raised objections regarding unauthorized constructions, excess built-up area, and deviations made by the appellants.
Litigation commenced when the first respondent’s father filed Writ Petition No. 21661 of 2017 before the Madras High Court. On March 28, 2018, the High Court directed the appellants to rectify defects in the violated portions of the building. Subsequently, on June 6, 2018, the appellants filed an application with the CMDA seeking regularisation of the deviations under Section 113-C of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971, read with Government Order (G.O.) Nos. 110 and 111 dated June 22, 2017. When the matter came up for compliance on June 28, 2018, the High Court recorded the appellants’ undertaking that the fifth floor had been removed, the basement partitions demolished for parking, and that the regularisation application for the fourth floor remained pending.
Later, on April 21, 2023, the first respondent issued a fresh communication to the CMDA and subsequently filed Writ Petition No. 17682 of 2023. On June 15, 2023, the High Court directed the CMDA to decide her representation. Pursuant to this, the CMDA prepared a report dated August 9, 2023, noting existing deviations in the building.
The appellants challenged the CMDA’s report in Writ Petition No. 25737 of 2023. In the interim, a Division Bench of the High Court in C. Prabhakaran v. Dharmendra Pratap Yadav & Ors. had held G.O. Nos. 110 and 111 invalid. However, that decision was appealed before the Supreme Court in M/s Billroth Hospital Ltd. v. The State of Tamil Nadu (along with connected civil appeals) at the instance of the CMDA, where the issue regarding the scope of regularisation under Section 113-C of the 1971 Act remains pending.
Relying on similar orders passed in K. Perumal v. The State of Tamil Nadu (W.P. No. 9725 of 2017), the Madras High Court on September 27, 2023, allowed the appellants’ Writ Petition No. 25737 of 2023 and directed the CMDA not to take any coercive steps against them until the Supreme Court delivered its decision on the regularisation issue.
Despite this order, the first respondent made a representation on January 31, 2024, seeking enforcement of a Form IV notice dated November 10, 2023, and subsequently filed Writ Petition No. 12779 of 2024. On April 28, 2025, a Division Bench of the High Court directed the CMDA to remove the unauthorized constructions within eight weeks, observing that unauthorized constructions could not be regularised and that the pendency of a regularisation application provided no ground to withhold action. Aggrieved by this direction, the appellants appealed to the Supreme Court.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
Upon reviewing the record, the Supreme Court observed that the High Court failed to account for its own prior subsisting order dated September 27, 2023, which explicitly restrained the CMDA from taking coercive measures while the broader issue of regularisation remained pending before the apex court.
Highlighting the binding nature of the earlier order on the planning authority, the Supreme Court observed:
“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 Court emphasized that the High Court’s subsequent direction generated conflicting legal mandates on the exact same subject matter:
“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 apex court further observed that since the legal questions surrounding regularisation under Section 113-C of the 1971 Act were still awaiting final resolution, the order directing demolition was unsustainable:
“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.”
Concluding its analysis, the bench held:
“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.”
Decision of the Court
The Supreme Court allowed the civil appeal and set aside the High Court’s impugned order dated April 28, 2025. The apex court directed that the appellants and the CMDA shall continue to be governed by the High Court’s earlier order dated September 27, 2023.
The Court held that the parties remain at liberty to pursue further steps once the issue of regularisation is decided in the pending civil appeals before the Supreme Court. In the interim, the Court directed that status quo be maintained by all parties regarding the constructions undertaken at the building, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
Case Title: G. Sathyanarayana Bothra & Others v. M.D. Lokeswari & Another
Case No.: Civil Appeal No. 10045 of 2026
Bench: Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar
Date: August 22, 2026
