The Supreme Court has set aside a Madras High Court order directing the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority (CMDA) to remove alleged unauthorised constructions and deviations in a building, holding that the High Court was required to take into account its own earlier order restraining coercive action while the larger issue of regularisation remained pending before the Supreme Court.

A Bench comprising Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar allowed the civil appeal arising from the dispute concerning the building known as ‘Indira Arcade’. 

The bench noted that the impugned direction for demolition was inconsistent with the earlier order dated September 27, 2023, under which the parties had been directed to await the outcome of proceedings concerning the regularisation of unauthorised constructions.

Buy Now: 50+ Supreme Court Judgments – July 2026

The dispute arose between occupants and owners of portions of Indira Arcade, where the first respondent, being the daughter of the owner of the plot on which the building was constructed, occupied part of the second floor. The appellants had acquired portions extending from the ground floor to the third floor as well as a portion of the fourth floor under a Memorandum of Understanding with Indira Foundations Private Limited.

The grievance before the authorities and courts concerned alleged excess and unauthorised construction, deviations from the sanctioned plan and other alterations said to have been undertaken in the portions owned by the appellants and elsewhere in the building.

The litigation had a lengthy procedural history. Initially, the first respondent’s father approached the Madras High Court in 2017 seeking directions to the CMDA to consider his representation concerning the alleged unauthorised construction. On March 28, 2018, the appellants were directed to rectify defects relating to the violated portions of the building by June 8, 2018.

The appellants subsequently applied for regularisation of the deviations under Section 113-C of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971. The High Court later recorded that the basement had been demolished and that the regularisation application concerning the fourth floor was pending before the CMDA.

The question of regularisation subsequently became central to the litigation. The statutory mechanism under Section 113-C of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act permits applications for regularisation of unauthorised construction, subject to statutory requirements.

However, Government Orders Nos. 110 and 111 dated June 22, 2017, issued in connection with the regularisation mechanism, had themselves been declared invalid by a Division Bench of the Madras High Court in C. Prabhakaran vs. Dharmendra Pratap Yadav & Ors. The matter concerning the validity of those Government Orders was thereafter brought before the Supreme Court in proceedings involving CMDA, along with other connected civil appeals.

Because the larger issue was pending before the Supreme Court, the Madras High Court had, in several proceedings, adopted the approach that parties should await the Supreme Court’s decision before further coercive action was taken.

A significant development occurred on September 27, 2023, when the High Court considered a challenge to a CMDA report/order concerning the alleged deviations.

The High Court noted that the appellants’ regularisation application under Section 113-C was pending and that the larger question concerning regularisation under the relevant Government Orders was before the Supreme Court. It consequently directed that no coercive steps be taken against the appellants until the Supreme Court decided the pending issue.
The Supreme Court noted that this September 27, 2023 order was important because both the appellants and the CMDA were parties to it. As a result, the authority was required to abide by the direction restraining coercive action while the regularisation issue remained pending.

Despite the pending regularisation proceedings, the first respondent continued to pursue action against the alleged unauthorised constructions. A fresh representation was submitted to the CMDA on January 31, 2024, seeking action on a notice issued by the authority on November 10, 2023.

The matter eventually reached the High Court again. In its order dated April 28, 2025, the Division Bench took the view that the mere pendency of an application for regularisation could not prevent action against unauthorised construction. It concluded that the unauthorised portions ought to be removed and directed the CMDA to take appropriate steps.
That direction became the subject matter of the appeal before the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court’s central concern was not merely whether the construction was ultimately capable of being regularised. Rather, it focused on the effect of the High Court’s own earlier order and the need for consistency in judicial directions concerning the same subject matter.

The Court observed that the CMDA continued to be governed by the September 27, 2023 order, which specifically restrained coercive steps because the issues concerning regularisation under Section 113-C and the relevant Government Orders were pending before the Supreme Court.

According to the Court, the High Court, while deciding the subsequent proceedings, ought to have considered its earlier order. Instead, it directed coercive action and removal of the alleged unauthorised construction despite the continuing pendency of the regularisation proceedings. The Supreme Court held that this resulted in inconsistent orders concerning the same parties and subject matter.

The Supreme Court specifically found that the High Court was not justified in directing the CMDA to demolish the unauthorised constructions and deviations within eight weeks.

The Court emphasised that the issue of regularisation had not been finally resolved and that the parties had previously been directed to await the outcome of the pending proceedings before the Supreme Court. In those circumstances, the subsequent demolition direction could not stand.

The Bench therefore held that the April 28, 2025 order was legally unsustainable because it was contrary to the High Court’s own earlier order dated September 27, 2023.

The Supreme Court accordingly set aside the Madras High Court’s April 28, 2025 order.

It directed that the appellants, the CMDA and the other concerned parties would remain governed by the earlier High Court order dated September 27, 2023. The parties were given liberty to take further steps after the issue of regularisation is decided in the pending civil appeals before the Supreme Court.

The Court directed that status quo be maintained with regard to the constructions in the building until the pending issues are decided. The civil appeal was allowed on those terms, with the parties directed to bear their own costs.

Membership Required to Access Case Details & Order Copy

To view the complete Case Details and Download Order Copy, you must have an active membership. Please subscribe to continue.

Read More: Pre-2017 Open University Qualifications Can’t Be Used to Deny Promotion: Supreme Court