Madras High Court
Choodamani Narayanan vs Chennai Metropolitan Development … on 22 April, 2026
W.P.No.5664 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved on : 27.11.2025
Pronounced on : 22.04.2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN
W.P.No.5664 of 2025
and
W.M.P.No.6269 of 2025
1.Choodamani Narayanan,
rep. by her son & Agent, Mr.N.Krishnan,
No.15, Parthasarathy Gardens, Alwarpet,
Chennai – 600 018.
2.Dr.Sadayavel Kailasam
3.Sriram Sivaraman .. Petitioners
Vs.
1.Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority ('CMDA'),
'Thalamuthu Natarajan Maaligai',
No.1, Gandhi-Irwin Road,
Egmore, Chennai – 600 008.
2.Archana Ruia
3.M/s.RUIA Developers LLP,
represented by its Partner, Mr.Mayank Ruia,
34, Ulsoor Road, Yellappa Garden,
Yellappa Chetty Layout, Sivanchetti Gardens,
Bengaluru, Karnataka – 560 042.
.. Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the
1/48
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.5664 of 2025
records of the Planning Permission dated 13.09.2024 bearing
Planning Permission No.OL-PP/NHRB/0543/2024 and to quash
the same.
For Petitioners : Mr.M.S.Murali
Mr.M.Velmurugan
for R and P Partners
For R1 : Mr.P.S.Raman
Advocate General
for M/s.Akhil Akbar Ali
For R2 : Mr.Vijay Narayan
Senior Advocate
for Mr.K.T.Sanjeev Kumar
For R3 : Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan
for Ms.Madhumitha
ORDER
The petitioners are residents of an area called
Parthasarathy Garden, Kasturi Rangan Road, Teynampet,
Chennai – 600 018. They challenge the proceedings of the first
respondent in granting planning permission to the respondents
2 & 3, to put up a construction consisting of ground floor
(part)/stilt floor (part) and 4 floors, to a height of 18.30 meters.
2. The petitioners plead that M/s.Kasturi Estates Private
Limited (hereinafter referred to as ‘KEPL’) belongs to the Kasturi
2/48
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.5664 of 2025
Group, which publishes dailies and magazines. The said
company owned extensive properties, in and around, Chennai
city. An extent of 68 grounds, comprised in Survey No.1591/1 &
1589/4 of Mylapore, belonged to M/s.KEPL. It was originally
purchased by one, Kasturi Ranga Iyengar, on 10.01.1896. He
passed away sometime in 1923 and the property devolved on his
sons, K.Srinivasan and K.Gopalan. These two gentlemen, along
with few other members of the family, vested the aforesaid
property in favour of M/s.KEPL. M/s.KEPL applied to this Court
in C.P.No.9 of 1962 for reduction of the share capital and to
refund the excess amount to its shareholders in proportion to
their holdings in cash and in form of immovable properties. This
Court ordered the reduction on 20.04.1962. In parity to the
reduction of share capital, pursuant to a resolution dated
08.05.1962, the properties came to be vested with one
Ms.Menaka Parthasarathy.
3. Ms.Menaka Parthasarathy decided to develop the said
property into a residential layout. She applied for the same and
obtained sanction bearing Reference No.L.A.No.47/68. At the
time of sanctioning the layout, several conditions were
3/48
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.5664 of 2025
stipulated. The primary amongst them being clauses 4 to 7, 12,
15 & 16 and 23.
4. The predecessors of the petitioners herein purchased
plots from KEPL and Ms.Menaka Parthasarathy by way of
registered sale deeds. The mother of the second respondent too,
is one such purchaser.
5. The cause of action for this writ petition is that the
second respondent entered into a joint development agreement
with the third respondent to construct a multi-storied residential
apartment. It is the plea of the petitioners, that this is in
violation of the conditions of the sanctioned plan. The petitioners
allege that the area is a premium residential locality with lot of
trees and plants planted by the residents, and the idea of
maintaining the area in accordance with the layout conditions is
to ensure ecological balance and to preserve green belts in and
around the locality.
6. The petitioners plead that on coming to know of the
attempt by respondents 2 & 3 to put up a construction, they
4/48
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.5664 of 2025
pleaded with them not to proceed with the project. As it fell on
deaf ears, they have approached the first respondent by way of a
representation dated 12.01.2023. As no response was received
from the first respondent, they filed WP.No.17019 of 2023 for a
direction to consider this representation, before deciding on the
application to grant planning permission to the respondents 2 &
3.
7. This Court directed the first respondent to hear the
petitioners before taking a final decision on 16.06.2023.
Pursuant to this order, CMDA called for a meeting of the
petitioners and passed an order on 06.08.2024 (the order was
signed on 09.08.2024).
8. The gist of the order being that the Tamil Nadu
Combined Development and Building Rules, 2019, (hereinafter
referred to as ‘TNCDBR, 2019’) prevails over, any equivalent land
rules and regulations for the land, captured in the layout
conditions. The petitioners approached this Court by way of a
writ petition in W.P.No.30246 of 2024, challenging the order
dated 06.08.2024. When the writ petition came up for hearing,
5/48
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.5664 of 2025
the petitioners were informed that the respondents 2 & 3 were
granted the planning permission on 13.09.2024. Hence, the
petitioners withdrew that writ petition on 04.02.2025, with
liberty to challenge the planning permission.
9. It is the plea of the petitioners that the planning
permission granted under Section 49 of the Tamil Nadu Town
and Country Planning Act, 1971, (Act 35 of 1972), (hereinafter
referred to as ‘the 1971 Act’) cannot be in violation of the layout
conditions imposed by the Chennai City Municipal Corporation.
They pleaded that the layout condition specifically states that
only one residential dwelling unit can be maintained in each plot
and that, only 2/3rd of the area of each plot can be built upon.
They urged that due to layout conditions being valid and
binding, they have to be complied with by the respondents 2 & 3.
10. On the date of admission on 19.02.2025, Mr.Akhil
Akbar Ali took notice for the first respondent and notice was
issued to respondents 2 & 3.
6/48
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.5664 of 2025
11. Mr.Akhil Akbar Ali filed counter affidavit on behalf of
the first respondent. The counter affidavit states that the
TNCDBR, 2019, approved by the Government, supersedes the
layout conditions imposed by the Corporation of Madras under
various regulations prior to 1975. It relies upon Rule 74 of the
said 2019 Rules for the said purpose. It is alleged that one of the
petitioners in WP.No.30246 of 2024, was a gentleman by name
Puneet Gupta, who, while objecting to the respondents 2 & 3
developing the property, had himself applied for and obtained
planning permission for his property on 01.06.2016. The counter
states that in compliance with the order in WP.No.17019 of 2023
dated 16.06.2023, six persons including two advocates were
heard. It adds that permission for a high rise building has not
been given under the planning permission and that, only a
non-high rise building to an extent of 18.3 meters, with specified
number of dwelling units, is permissible under the TNCDBR,
2019.
12. The counter further submits that in terms of Section
9-C, Chapter II-A of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning
7/48
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.5664 of 2025
(Amendment) Act, 1973, (Tamil Nadu Act No.22 of 1974), read
with the 1971 Act, the CMDA had carried out survey and studies
and prepared a Master Plan for Chennai Metropolitan Area in the
year 1975, and that it was approved in the year 1976. The
Master Plan has allocated the areas specifically for industries,
commerce, housing, play fields and other major urban land uses
in the appropriate location. The counter relies upon Rule 26 of
Development Control Rules for Chennai Metropolitan Area to
plead that the provisions of Chennai City Municipal Corporation
Act or the Panchayat Act, etc., stands superseded in light of the
Rules. It is further urged that when the Master Plan came into
force in the year 1975, it superseded all the Rules prevailing or
existing prior to 1975.
13. To that effect, it relied upon Rule 33 of the Tamil Nadu
Development Control Rules, 2008. By virtue of Rule 74 of the
TNCDBR, 2019, the Development Control Regulations, 1975 and
2008, also stand superseded. The touchstone on the basis of
which approvals are granted today is TNCDBR, 2019, which
permits the grant of planning permissions. Hence, it is pleaded
that the writ petition must be dismissed.
8/48
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.5664 of 2025
14. A partner of the third respondent has filed a counter.
In this counter, he traces title to the property for which the
planning permission has been obtained. It is the plea of the third
respondent that he had obtained permission from the first
respondent in terms of the TNCDBR, 2019, and relies upon Rule
74, to urge that it takes precedence over all conditions, which
has been imposed earlier.
15. It is urged that when there is a conflict between the
regulations made under the TNCDBR 2019 and the 1971 Act, it
is the regulations under the Tamil Nadu Town and Country
Planning Act which should prevail. More or less, the counter of
the third respondent on this aspect adopts the plea of the first
respondent. The counter also points out that Mr.Puneet Gupta
had obtained a planning permission to put up the construction,
contrary to the layout conditions and although they are in
violation of the TNCDBR, 2019, it is valid. In fine, the plea is that
the conditions in the layout are not in force as they have been
repealed by the 2019 regulations. The third respondent pleads
that it is well within the rights of the owners to develop a
9/48
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.5664 of 2025
non-high rise residential building in the area. This counter too,
seeks for dismissal of the writ petition.
16. With the pleadings having been completed, the writ
petition had been argued before my predecessor. He had
reserved orders, but could not pronounce the same due to his
unfortunate demise. Thereafter, the matter was listed before me.
I took it up for hearing.
17. I heard Mr.M.S.Murali and Mr.M.Velmurugan for the
petitioners, Mr.P.S.Raman, Hon’ble the Advocate General for
Mr.Akhil Akbar Ali for the first respondent, Mr.Vijay Narayan,
Senior Counsel for Mr.K.T.Sanjeev Kumar for second respondent
and Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan for Ms.Madhumitha for the third
respondent.
18. Mr.M.S.Murali, after narrating the facts, stated that the
layout conditions had been approved by the Chennai Municipal
Corporation, in terms of the prevailing 1919 Act in the year
1968. Contrary to the layout conditions, he points out that the
respondents 2 & 3 are attempting to put up a construction
10/48
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.5664 of 2025
consisting of a stilt and four floors. He rebuts the allegation of
the respondents, that the petitioners themselves have put up a
multi-storied construction. He states that the petitioners are in
compliance with the layout conditions. He pleads that the
construction of a multi-storied building would affect the peaceful
atmosphere maintained in the layout, and that the layout
conditions have not been repealed, but continue to govern the
area.
19. Mr.M.Velmurugan, in addition, submitted that while
modification in the layout plan is permissible, the same should
be strictly in compliance with section 54 of the Tamil Nadu Town
and Country Planning Act.
20. Mr.P.S.Raman, Hon’ble the Advocate General, pointed
out that the conditions in the layout plan bearing Reference
No.L.A.No.47/68, were imposed on the request of Ms.Menaka
Parthasarathy, the sponsor of the layout. He states, pursuant to
the amendment made in 1974 to the Town and Country
Planning Act, Chapter-II A was introduced and the CMDA was
established. By virtue of this provision, any construction above
11/48
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.5664 of 2025
two floors requires approval of the CMDA. He states that the
CMDA framed the Development Control Rules and divided the
City into several zones, namely,
(i)Residential;
(ii)Mixed;
(iii)Commercial;
(iv)Industrial; and
(v)No construction zone.
21. He states that the premises to which the writ petition
relates, continues to be a residential zone. He urges that the
extent of construction depends upon the floor space index which
is again decided on the basis of the size of the land zone, and
width of the road which abuts the area for proposed
construction. He states that the CMDA insists that the set-back
norms have to be adhered to, and all these conditions had been
verified by the first respondent prior to the granting of approval.
He pleads that the respondents 2 & 3 have merged two plots into
one. They propose to construct eight apartments, two on each
floor. He adds, the private respondents have applied and
obtained permission for demolition and re-construction. He
12/48
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.5664 of 2025
urges, by the passage of time, the layout conditions originally
imposed have become irrelevant and cannot be enforced. On law,
he places strong reliance on Rule 74 of TNCDBR, 2019, and
urges that this provision repeals all the conditions that had been
imposed earlier and for the purpose of approval, the CMDA is
governed by the TNCDBR alone. He pleads that the present
building rules alone are applicable and that, by virtue of Section
105 of the Town and Country Planning Act, any condition
imposed in the layout stands nullified.
22. He pleads that a selective approach has been made by
the petitioners. They did not object when Mr.Puneet Gupta
sought to develop his property, but are opposing only when the
respondents 2 & 3 are seeking to develop theirs. He states the
issue of overriding effect of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country
Planning Act, and the Regulations made thereunder has been
settled by the Supreme Court in Madhya Pradesh Housing
and Infrastructure Development Board and Another Vs.
Vijay Bodana and others, (2020) 4 SCC 521. He also places
reliance upon the judgment of this Court in Tamil Nadu
13/48
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.5664 of 2025
Housing Board Vs. Mary Rani Immanual and others, 2013
SCC OnLine Mad 1503.
23. Mr.Vijay Narayan, Senior Counsel appearing for the
second respondent urges that the second respondent has
entered into a Joint Development Agreement with the third
respondent to develop her property. He states that the layout
conditions can be divided into two categories, namely, statutory
conditions, which are compulsory in every layout and non-
statutory conditions, which are in the nature of covenants
running with the land. He states that every land owner would
like to monetize the use of land due to reasons which are
personal to them. He states that the promoter of the layout,
Ms.Menaka Parthasarathy, had imposed the layout conditions
which she could not have placed in a sale deed. He states, what
could not be done directly by the promoter had been done
indirectly under the guise of layout approval.
24. He adopts the arguments of Hon’ble the Advocate
General, that Rule 74 of the 2019 Rules overrides the layout
conditions and refers to Section 122 of the Town and Country
14/48
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.5664 of 2025
Planning Act. To substantiate his plea, he states that the highest
of the plan is the Master Plan envisaged under Section 17, which
are followed by the Detailed Development Plan under Section 20.
He states, Section 20(n) is wide enough to deal with the issue of
land division, and without the same, the Government still has
the power under Section 22 to order the Town Planning
Authority to develop a Master Plan. He pleads that the layout
plan for M/s.KEPL had not imposed the same conditions as
found in Reference No.L.A.No.47/68. Therefore, it is open to
CMDA to apply the 2019 Rules and grant the impugned
permission.
25. He also refers to Sections 105, 122 and 124 of the
1971 Act, read with Rule 32 of TNCDBR, 2019 to substantiate
his plea. Referring to these provisions, his plea is that the layout
conditions are overridden by the operation of law. He pleads that
2019 Regulations are alive to the present situation, which calls
for more useful and more housing for the residents of Chennai.
26. Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan states that the purpose of
enacting the TNCDBR, 2019 is for ease of doing business and to
15/48
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.5664 of 2025
ensure simplification of rules and procedures for approval and
development of layouts with focus on safety and sustainability.
He states that the Government of Tamil Nadu had taken a
decision to bring forth the 2019 Rules in order to revise and re-
issue the various building Rules, which were then existing
across the State.
27. In response, Mr.M.S.Murali urges that none of these
submissions are tenable. According to him, the Tamil Nadu
Urban Local Bodies Act, 1998, which had repealed all the
legislations relating to local bodies, a saving clause has been
inserted under Section 200, and this saves the layout conditions.
It is pleaded that, exploitation of the land by the respondents 2
& 3 should not be detrimental to the other residents, as in the
present case.
28. I have carefully considered the submissions of both
sides. I have gone through the records in detail.
16/48
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.5664 of 2025
29. Before dwelling into the nitty gritty of this case, in
order to have a holistic understanding of town planning and the
law governing them, it is essential to look into its history.
30. The erstwhile town planning legislations in India were
largely based upon the needs and interests of the colonial
masters. They were concerned with the need for segregation and,
thereby, town planning served as a means of asserting their
power. Those who came to India from the then Great Britain,
regularly fell sick on account of epidemics like cholera and
plague. The belief for a long time was that this was on account of
“miasma” – the disease spread through unhealthy air. Hence, the
British East India Company was more concerned with the need
for sanitation, drainage and ventilation.
31. After the Crown took over from the British East India
Company, a Royal Sanitary Commission was formed. The
Sanitary Commission submitted a report, which led to
Presidency Level Sanitary Commissions being established in
Presidency Towns of Madras, Bombay, and Calcutta. The
purpose of these Commissions were to oversee public health and
17/48
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.5664 of 2025
hygiene in urban areas. As pointed out above, in furtherance of
their policy of segregation, the British town planners created well
planned “white towns” in the civil lines, which had better
infrastructure like wide roads, pipe waters, sewage systems, and
parks etc., for European residents, and left the “natives” to
reside in the less regulated “black towns”. Prior to these efforts,
Municipal Corporations were established in Madras, Bombay,
and Calcutta viz., in 1688 for Madras, and in 1726 for the other
two presidencies.
32. With the outbreak of bubonic plague in Bombay, the
British started searching for solutions. They came to the
conclusion that the spread of plague was on account of
overcrowding and unsanitary conditions. In order to acquire land
for town planning, they inserted Section 3(f) in the Land
Acquisition Act of 1894. This empowered the Government to
acquire private lands for town planning in the definition of
“public purpose”. Soon thereafter, improvement trusts were
established across the Country. The improvement trusts utilised
the Land Acquisition Act to acquire lands, which often led to the
displacement of people, belonging to the lower strata of society.
18/48
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.5664 of 2025
33. The first formal legislative interference in Town
Planning was the Bombay Town Planning Act of 1915. This Act
empowered the local authorities to prepare “Town Planning
Schemes” for areas under their jurisdictions. This legislation
introduced concepts like zoning, building regulations and
collection of taxes from owners, on account of the increase in the
value of their properties, due to the implementation of the
schemes. Being influenced by this legislation, the then Madras
Government, acting on the advice of Mr.Patrick Geddes,
legislated the Madras Town Planning Act of 1920. He was ably
assisted by a British architect, Mr.H.V.Lanchester. In addition to
the Bombay Town Planning Act of 1915, the Madras Act was
influenced by the Housing, Town Planning Act of 1909 and the
Housing and Town Planning Act of 1919, which were enacted for
providing a legal framework for town planning in the then Great
Britain.
34. The Madras Town Planning Act of 1920 is being
referred to in this judgment, since the development of the area in
question arose, when the said legislation was in force. This Act
19/48
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.5664 of 2025
empowered the Municipal Council to create and execute Town
Planning Schemes. Under Section 4, details were given as to
matters that may be dealt with in such a scheme. Section 4(a)
enabled for a Town Planning Scheme to provide for laying out or
re-laying of land, whether vacant or already built upon, as
building sites or for any other purposes mentioned in the said
Section. Section 4(n) contemplated imposition of conditions and
restrictions in regard to the following:
(i) Character;
(ii) Number;
(iii) Architectural features;
(iv) Height of the building allowed in specific areas;
(v) The purpose to which the building or specified area may
or may not be appropriated; and,
(vi) Provision and maintenance of sufficient open space
about the building.
35. The word “detailed development plan” was not defined
under the Madras Act VII of 1920. The then Madras Government
was given significant oversight powers including the authority to
sanction schemes, overrule objections and also to ensure proper
20/48
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.5664 of 2025
implementation. Chapter V contemplated a situation where, after
the sanction of the scheme, if disputes arose, the State
Government was to appoint an arbitrator to deal with the
specified aspects delineated under Section 27.
36. A reference to Section 4(a) and 4(n) of the 1920 Act
makes it clear that while approving the scheme of development,
the planning authorities could impose conditions for grant of
approval. Though the Hon’ble Advocate General and the learned
Senior Counsel for the respondents argued that the layout
conditions were imposed on the request of Ms.Menaka
Parasarathy, the sponsor of the layout and not by the planning
authorities, in the light of Section 4(a) and 4(n) of the 1920
legislation, I am not in a position to agree with the same.
37. Perusal of aforesaid Act shows that the then Town
Planning Authority, namely, the Corporation of Madras, was
entitled to impose those conditions. Apart from the legislation, a
perusal of the order passed by the Assistant Engineer, Town
Planning, Corporation of Madras dated 15.04.1969 points out
that those conditions had been imposed by that town planning
21/48
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.5664 of 2025
authorities as the condition of the order sanctioning the layout
and not by Ms.Menaka Parthasarathy.
38. Reading the order dated 15.04.1969 would lead one to
the conclusion that in addition to the conditions laid therein, the
layout, being sponsored by Ms.Menaka Parathasarathy, had to
comply with the requirements of the erstwhile Madras City
Municipal Corporation Act. In terms of Section 4(n), the Town
Planning Authority had imposed the following conditions namely,
(i) that there should be only one dwelling house;
(ii) that the area specified must be used only for residential
purpose; and
(iii) that at least not more than 2/3rd of the extent of the
site should be built upon.
Conditions 4 to 7 when read with condition No.12 of the 1969
layout approval order show that they were imposed in exercise of
the statutory power under the Town and Country Planning Act of
1920. Hence, the plea of the respondents that the old layout
conditions had become irrelevant by passage of time cannot be
entertained. Conditions imposed by a statutory authority do not
lapse with the passage of time. The statutory authority certainly
22/48
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.5664 of 2025
has the power to modify the conditions, if the statute so provides
for it. More on this later.
39. It is the plea of the counsel for the respondents that on
account of coming into force of TNCDBR, 2019, the conditions
earlier imposed have all been repealed.
40. The Town and Country Planning Act of 1920 was
repealed by the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act,
1971. The reason for the repeal was that the 1920 Act, mainly
focused on Town Planning Schemes. It lacked a broader
perspective on regional planning, which was essential for the
growth of the urban areas, leading to the interplay between the
urban areas and the surrounding rural areas. Furthermore,
while there was a planned development of areas covered under
the scheme, in areas not so covered, it led to an unsystematic
and haphazard growth.
41. In addition, the Municipal Authorities also felt that the
1920 Act did not give them sufficient powers to enforce the
23/48
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.5664 of 2025
regulations. Consequently, the State of Tamil Nadu enacted the
Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act of 1971.
42. It was not as if, as urged by the respondents, with the
repeal of the Town and Country Planning Act of 1920, all the
terms and conditions that had been imposed under the erstwhile
legislation and the rules made thereunder stood repealed. In
fact, the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971, has
a provision saving such schemes. This is under section 34. For
ready reference, Section 34 is extracted as hereunder:
“34. Detailed town planning schemes prepared
under the Tamil Nadu Town Planning Act, 1920,
deemed to be detailed development plans under this
Act.- Every detailed town planning scheme notified,
submitted or sanctioned under the Tamil Nadu Town
Planning Act, 1920 (Tamil Nadu Act VII of 1920)
together with any variation made thereto shall, for
purposes of this Act, be deemed to be a detailed
development plan made under the Act and all actions
taken under the said Act in respect thereof shall be
deemed to have been taken under this Act.”
A perusal of this section makes it clear that the Town PlanningSchemes that had been prepared under the 1920 legislation and
all actions, which includes the 1969 order approving the layout
24/48
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.5664 of 2025
are deemed to be detailed development plans under the 1971Act. This provision was obviously incorporated in order to ensure
a legal continuity in urban planning and development
regulations.
43. I will also have to consider another provision, which
was inserted by the Tamil Nadu Act 40 of 1981. This amendment
inserted as Section 34-A which reads as follows:
“34-A. Special provision for sanction of building
plan in certain cases.- Notwithstanding anything
contained in this Act or in any other law relating to
local authorities for the time being in force, or in any
detailed development plan, made or deemed to be
made under this Act, the Municipal Corporation of
Chennai may sanction any buildings plan,-
(i) providing for the construction of more than one
dwelling-house on any one site; or
(ii) providing for the construction of any building
with variation in regard to requirement of plot extent or
plot coverage or open space.”
44. This provision was introduced since the then Municipal
Corporation of Chennai continued to sanction plans, despite the
repeal of the Town and Country Planning Act of 1920 and the
25/48
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.5664 of 2025
formation of CMDA under the 1971 legislation. Soon after the
Town and Country Planning Act was brought into force, an
amendment was made with respect to the City of
Madras/Chennai vide Tamil Nadu Act 22 of 1974. By this
amendment, Chapter II-A was inserted into the said Act.
45. The Madras Metropolitan Development Authority
(MMDA) was established under Section 9-A. The powers and
functions of the MMDA was incorporated under Section 9-C.
Hence, with the establishment of MMDA, now known as CMDA,
the local body, namely, the Municipal Corporation of Chennai
lost its power to grant any approvals. Unmindful of the same, the
Municipal Corporation of Chennai continued to approve and
sanction layouts and building plans, together with conditions, as
before. Hence, the amendment was brought in 1981 titled as
“The Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning (Amendment) Act
of 1981”.
46. By Section 3 of this legislation, building plans that had
been approved between the period 15.08.1974 and ending
01.10.1980 were declared to have been validly sanctioned as if
26/48
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.5664 of 2025
Section 2 of the Act had been in force at all material times. This
legislation was undertaken in order to validate the action of the
Municipal Corporation of Chennai. As the statement of objects
and reasons of the amendment itself points out that when the
Town and Country Planning Act came into force in 1971, there
was no provision in the said legislation empowering the
Municipal Corporation of Madras to sanction building plans with
the variations, without the same having been approved by the
Government. Admittedly, in this case, neither Section 3 of the
Amendment Act nor Section 34-A of the incorporated legislation
were utilised. Instead, the CMDA had approved multi-storey
constructions in the area which, according to the petitioner, is
contrary to the conditions imposed under Section 4(a) and
Section 4(n) of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1920.
47. The survey of Town and Country Panning Act shows
that the word “layout” has not been shown as a separate and
distinct category. The word “development” defined under Section
2(13) is comprehensive enough to cover a layout, and in this
case, the one sponsored by Ms.Menaka Parathasarathy and
approved by the Corporation of Chennai in the year 1969.
27/48
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.5664 of 2025
48. A combined reading of Section 2(13), Section 2(15) with
Section 34 of the 1971 legislation, makes it clear that the Town
Planning Scheme approved by the Corporation of Chennai in the
year 1969 would be a “development plan” within the meaning of
the Town and Country Planning Act of 1971.
49. It is the submission of the Hon’ble Advocate General
and the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondents that the Master Plan for the metropolitan area of
Chennai having come into force, the layout conditions imposed
under the order dated 15.04.1969 stands nullified.
50. This submission is resisted by the petitioners, stating
that one has no relationship with the other and the submission
is without any substance.
51. Let me now look into the Tamil Nadu Town and
Country Planning Act, 1971, Development Control Regulations
(DCR) which were in existence earlier and the appropriate
provisions of the TNCDBR.
28/48
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.5664 of 2025
52. For the city of Chennai, the CMDA is the specilised
planning body. It is constituted under Section 9-A of 1971 Act.
One of the primary functions of CMDA is to carry out a survey
and on that basis, prepare a Master Plan, a Detailed
Development Plan or a New Town Development Plan for the
Chennai Metropolitan Planning Area. This is as per Section 9-C.
The contents of a Master Plan is covered under Section 17.
53. Master Plan, inter alia, provides as to the manner in
which the land in the planning area should be used, zoning
regulations like residential, commercial, industrial etc.,
infrastructure reservations and the stages by which the Master
plan shall be carried out.
54. On preparation of a draft by the CMDA, the same is
submitted to the State Government seeking its consent for
publication of the same. The Government has the power to
suggest modifications as it thinks fit. In case, any suggestions
are so made, the CMDA has to make the modifications suggested
and submit the same to the Government. Once the Government
29/48
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.5664 of 2025
grants consent to publish, the draft of the Master Plan has to be
published in the Government Gazette as well as in the leading
dailies, having circulation in the region covered by the Master
Plan. In this case, it is the city of Chennai. On such publication,
any person can submit objections or suggestions for
modifications. After considering the objections or suggestions, if
any, the CMDA submits the final Master Plan to the Government
for sanction. This is done under Sections 24 to 28 of the Act. The
Master Plan become operational, once it is published in the
Tamilnadu Government Gazette. This is as per Section 30 of the
Act.
55. The first Master plan for the city of Chennai came into
force with effect from 04th December 1976. It was designed for a
20 year period between 1976 and 1996. The second Master Plan
was approved in 2008 and it is to be implemented till 2026. The
CMDA is supposed to prepare the third Master Plan for the
Chennai Metropolitan Area for the period between 2027 and
2046.
30/48
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.5664 of 2025
56. The analysis of the sections shows that a Master Plan
is a vision document. It covers the entire Chennai Metropolitan
Area and contemplates developments way into the future. The
primary goal of a Master Plan is the future growth and the entire
vision for the city. The primary content of the Master Plan is that
of land use, infrastructure and zoning. It states how the game
should be played for the entire Chennai Metropolitan Area.
57. Insofar as the building construction application is
concerned, it falls under Chapter VI of the Tamil Nadu Town and
Country Planning Act, 1971. This Chapter has 11 Sections
running from Section 47 to Section 58. It is titled as “Control of
Development and Use of Land”.
58. Under Section 47, once a Master Plan comes into force,
no person other than the State Government, Central
Government or local authority can use or develop a land in any
way that conflicts with the Master Plan. By virtue of this Section,
the vision document of a Master Plan is brought into force.
Unless and until the land used is in compliance with the zoning
31/48
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.5664 of 2025
regulations, no development is permissible. It is not in dispute,
across the bar, that the area covered under the writ petition is a
residential use zone.
59. By Section 48 of the 1971 Act, no person can carry out
any activity of development or change the land use without
obtaining prior permission from the CMDA, and in accordance
with the conditions, if any, specified therein.
60. The power to grant planning permission is found under
Section 49 of the 1971 Act. The important provision under this
section is Section 49(2). Prior to granting permission to develop
the land or building, the planning authority should have regard
to the purpose for which the permission is sought for, the
suitability of the place for the said purpose and the future
development and maintenance of the planning area.
61. As per Section 50 of the 1971 Act, once such a
permission is granted, it is to remain in force for a stated period
from the date of grant of permission.
32/48
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.5664 of 2025
62. By Section 51 of the 1971 Act, developments, which
have already commenced before coming into force of a Master
Plan or a Detailed Development Plan, are exempted from the
requirements of Section 48.
63. By Section 52 of the 1971 Act, if the planning
permission is refused on account of any reservation or
designation in any development plan, any persons interested in
the land or building can give a notice to the Government stating
that the land or building has become incapable of being
reasonably used in its existing state and hence, the Government
should acquire his or her interest in the land or building.
64. The manner of payment of compensation is found
under Section 53. By virtue of Section 54, the appropriate
planning authority is entitled to revoke or modify the plan
already granted. Sections 56 and 57 have vested extensive
powers with the authorities to take immediate action to prevent
any constructions or to remove any developments which are
unauthorised. Section 58 is a special provision for the
33/48
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.5664 of 2025
developments undertaken by the State or Central Governments
or local authorities who have been exempted under Section 47.
65. The pertinent provision for the purpose of this case is
Section 49 of the 1971 Act. While granting permission for
development, the CMDA is entitled to call for details and
documents as may be prescribed for that purpose.
66. I will now turn to the relevant provisions of TNCDBR,
2019.
67. These regulations, as seen earlier, have been framed
invoking several rule-making powers including Sections 32 and
122 of the 1971 Act. Rule 6 of the TNCDBR, 2019 deals with the
manner of obtaining planning permission. Under Rule 6(8) of the
TNCDBR, 2019, an application in conformity with Form-B has to
be filed. Under Clause-7, Form-B, the layout details together
with the copies of approval would have to be furnished. This
shows that prior to the grant of approval, the authority must be
satisfied that the proposed development is an approved layout
34/48
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.5664 of 2025
and also that the proposal for development is in accordance with
the conditions laid therein.
68. In addition to these regulations, under Section 49(2)(b)
of the 1971 Act, the CMDA has to take into consideration the
suitability of the place for the purpose of development. The word
‘suitability’ not only contemplates zoning regulations, but is wide
enough to include the layout conditions also.
69. The plea that TNCBDR, 2019 overrides the conditions
imposed under the layout plan is equally untenable. Rule 32 of
TNCDBR, 2019 indicates that, only in case there is a conflict
between TNCDBR and regulations under other rules for the time
being in force, the latter gets suspended to the extent of conflict
with TNCDBR. No rule, has been pointed out by Hon’ble the
Advocate General or by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for
the respondents, in the TNCDBR, which overrides the
pre-existing layout conditions. Hence, the argument that the
layout conditions got nullified on the promulgation of TNCDBR,
2019 is nothing but a red-erring argument and accordingly, it is
rejected.
35/48
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.5664 of 2025
70. Mr.Murali pleaded that the conditions, having been
imposed as early as 1969, should continue forever. I am not
agreeable with this submission also. I have already concluded
that the Town Planning Scheme sponsored by Ms.Menaka
Parthasarathy is a detailed development plan within the meaning
of Section 34 of the 1971 Act. If such being the position, under
Section 54, the appropriate planning authority is entitled to
revoke or modify the said plan. The limitation placed on the
exercise of such power is that an opportunity must be given to
any person, who opposes such revocation or modification.
71. I finally turn to the submission of Hon’ble the Advocate
General and the learned Senior Counsel that the conditions
imposed under the 1920 legislation and the 1971 legislation
automatically stand repealed by virtue of TNCDBR, 2019 having
come into force.
72. As to how a repeal and savings clause must be
interpreted has been settled over a long period of time. I need not
capture here the several authorities, which have laid down the
36/48
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.5664 of 2025
position. Suffice it to say that, for the purpose of interpreting a
repeal and savings clause, I must look at the legislative intent
and apply the general principle that a repeal, unless a contrary
intention is expressed, does not affect the existing rights,
liabilities, or legal proceedings that have been initiated under the
former legislation. This is because, the clause helps to maintain
the continuity by preserving past actions, existing rights and
legal processes. It also protects accrued rights, privileges and
liabilities.
73. As pointed out above, a layout plan approved under the
Madras Town Planning Act of 1920 is deemed to be a plan within
the meaning of the 1971 Act.
74. A reading of Rule 74 of TNCDBR, 2019 shows that the
intention of the rule is to repeal the existing rules, regulations,
bye-laws, orders, which are inconsistent and in conflict with the
TNCDBR, 2019. It was not the intention when the TNCDBR,
2019 was notified, to repeal all the conditions and regulations
which have been in force and present a clean slate to the Town
Planning Authorities to draw upon. Such an intention cannot be
37/48
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.5664 of 2025
imputed also, since as pointed out above, past actions, existing
rights and legal processes would have to be saved.
75. A repeal and savings clause cannot be read wider than
what it specifies. Rule 74(1) does not repeal the conditions that
have been laid out in a layout plan. Furthermore, they are
repealed only insofar as they are inconsistent with the 2019
Rules. It has not been pointed out by the respondents as to how
the layout conditions are against any of the rules contemplated
under the TNCDBR, 2019. Hence, I am not in a position to read
Rule 74 as one repealing all the earlier conditions, even if not in
conflict with the 2019 regulations and presenting a tabula rasa
to the Town Planning Authorities to proceed further, as if, all
that has been done from 1920 till 2019 stands nullified.
Furthermore, if a savings clause conflicts with the main statute,
it should be interpreted consistently with the legislative intent of
the main Act.
76. I have pointed out that the manner of alteration of a
development plan is found under Section 54 of the Town and
Country Planning Act, 1971. A regulation made under the parent
38/48
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.5664 of 2025
legislation cannot be so interpreted to nullify the power that has
been conferred on the Planning Authority by the parent
legislation. I should point out that the TNCDBR, 2019 has been
brought, inter alia, in exercise of the powers conferred under
Section 32(4) read with Section 122 of the 1971 Act. Hence,
TNCDBR, 2019 is subordinate to the 1971 Act and cannot be so
interpreted to nullify a provision in the parent statute.
77. Let me now turn to the authorities cited by the learned
counsel for the respective parties.
78. In Sridhar and another v. N. Revanna and others,
(2020) 11 SCC 221, the issue presented before the Supreme
Court involved the interpretation and consequent enforcement of
conditions imposed in a gift deed. The appellants before the
Supreme Court were the plaintiffs in the suit. They challenged
the sale deed executed by the first respondent, Mr.N.Revanna.
Mr.N.Revanna had received a property as a gift from his
grandfather, one Mr.Muniswamappa.
39/48
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.5664 of 2025
79. The plea of the plaintiffs was that the gift deed
restricted the power of Mr.Muniswamappa and his descendants
from alienating the property. Despite this condition, Revanna
had executed sale deeds on 07.10.1985, 08.10.1985 and
10.10.1985 in favour of the respondents 2 to 5. Consequently,
the plaintiffs sought declaration of their title and to declare the
sale deeds executed by Mr.N.Revanna in favour of the
respondents 2 to 5 as null and void.
80. The Supreme Court relied upon Section 10 of Transfer
of Property Act to hold that the conditions imposed by
Muniswamappa restraining the beneficiary from alienating the
property absolutely is void. The judgment affirmed that Section
10 of the Transfer of Property Act takes precedent over any
private arrangement that attempts to impose absolute restriction
on alienation of properties. This judgment is a proposition for the
point that any condition imposed regarding alienation should be
in accordance with the Transfer of Property Act and cannot
override the same. The gift deed can contain conditions, but the
enforceability of such conditions is subject to the Transfer of
40/48
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.5664 of 2025
Property Act. This judgment did not deal with the scope of
imposition of conditions for development of a land by the
statutory authorities exercising their powers under the
legislation. Hence, it is inapplicable to the facts of the present
case.
81. The next judgment relied upon by Hon’ble the Advocate
General is Madhya Pradesh Housing and Infrastructure
Development Board and another v. Vijay Bodana and
Others, (2020) 4 SCC 521. The facts of the case were that the
Madhya Pradesh Housing Board developed a colony titled “Indira
Nagar”, in Ujjain. It applied for sanctioning of this layout. The
plan was also sanctioned by designating a large extent of
property to serve as a commercial shopping complex. The
housing board applied for modification of this plan to change the
use from commercial to residential.
82. The original plan had been approved in 1981 and the
modification had been sought in 2004. After the files had gone
around the Madhya Pradesh Government, the Town Planning
Authorities, on a direction of the State Government, approved
41/48
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.5664 of 2025
the modification sought for in 2008. This modification was
challenged by the respondents before the High Court of Madhya
Pradesh by way of a writ petition in 2015. It was the petitioner’s
plea that the original allottees, pursuant to the layout plan in the
year 1981, had paid premium price expecting that a shopping
complex would be developed and any change in the layout plan
is contrary to the principle of promissory estoppel. The High
Court agreed with the writ petitioners and quashed the
modification granted in the year 2008 and also the deeds
executed thereto. Aggrieved by the same, an appeal was
preferred to the Supreme Court.
83. After a detailed analysis of the Madhya Pradesh Nagar
Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam of 1973, the Court came to a
conclusion that the Madhya Pradesh Housing Board had
followed all the procedures statutorily required for modification
of the plan approved in the year 1981. Consequently, it held that
the principle of promissory estoppel cannot be put against the
lawful modification of a layout plan by a development authority,
especially when the authority had followed the appropriate
statutory procedures.
42/48
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.5664 of 2025
84. In the present case, the CMDA, instead of following the
statutory procedures as required under the Tamil Nadu Town
and Country Planning Act of 1971, has taken a view that by
virtue of the TNCDBR 2019, the conditions that had been earlier
imposed stand repealed. I have found that the plea of total repeal
is legally untenable. I have also pointed out that the modification
is permissible, only if resort is made to Section 54 of the 1971
Act. That not having been done, the judgment of the Supreme
Court, instead of going in favour of the respondents, goes against
their stand.
85. The next judgment cited by the Hon’ble the Advocate
General is Tamil Nadu Housing Board v. Mary Rani
Immanual, 2013 SCC OnLine Mad 1503. The issue presented
before the Full Bench was whether the purchasers from the
Housing Board and the subsequent purchasers from them are
required to obtain ‘No objection certificate’ from the Housing
Board for demolishing the existing structures and putting up
new superstructures. The Full Bench held that once the Housing
Board had executed a sale deed and had transferred the
43/48
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.5664 of 2025
ownership of property including the undivided share in the land
to the allottees, it loses all its rights over the property and
cannot insist upon issuance of no objection certificate to develop
the property.
86. The Full Bench further held that the sale deeds
executed by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board in favour of the
allottees had granted absolute ownership rights to the allottees,
which encompass the common areas also. It found that re-
development of the property requires an agreement of all the
owners. It upheld the right of apartment owners under the
erstwhile Tamil Nadu Apartment Ownership Act of 1994, when
put against the claims of the Housing Board, after sale deeds
had been executed. The proposition of law, which flows out of
this judgment is that once a sale deed has been executed, either
by a private party or by an instrumentality of the State like the
Housing Board, the vendor cannot insist on enforcing conditions
which are contrary to the absolute sale deed executed.
87. I am afraid that I cannot apply this judgment to the
present case as the issue is not one about the sale deed executed
44/48
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.5664 of 2025
by Ms.Menaka Parathasarathy in favour of the petitioners and
the private respondents and the subsequent purchasers. The
issue is whether the statutory conditions imposed by the Town
Planning Authorities under the layout plan are valid, binding
and enforceable. I should point out that in Mary Rani
Immanual’s case, in paragraph 19, the court had held that the
nature of the property cannot be altered by the purchasers. That
is to say, if the property had been sold by the Housing Board as
a residential block, it cannot be converted into a commercial
block. In other words, the court had upheld the zoning
regulations on the basis of which the Housing Board had
developed residential units and had prevented the same from
being converted into a commercial unit, in exercise of the sale
deed that had been executed in favour of the
allottees/subsequent purchasers. This shows that if the Housing
Board had obtained approvals, on the basis of statutory
conditions imposed by the town planning authorities, even post
the sale to third parties, the conditions continue to operate.
45/48
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.5664 of 2025
88. In the light of the above discussions, the conclusion
that I arrive at are as follows:
(i) the conditions imposed by the Corporation of Chennai
through its Assistant Engineer, Town Planning on 15.04.1969
was in accordance with Section 4 of the Town and Country
Planning Act of 1920.
(ii) Such a detailed development plan is deemed to be a
plan within the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act of
1971 by virtue of Section 34.
(iii) Any modification or revocation of the conditions
imposed for such a plan, can be done only in terms of Section 54
of the Town and Country Planning Act of 1971.
(iv) Since Section 54 has not been resorted to by the State
and as they have presumed that the TNCDBR, 2019 repeals the
layout conditions, this court is constrained to interfere.
46/48
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.5664 of 2025
89. In view of the above, the writ petition succeeds. The
impugned order is quashed. This order will not stand in the way
of the CMDA from exercising powers strictly in accordance with
Section 54 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1971. No
costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is
closed.
22.04.2026
krk/nl
Index : Yes/No
Speaking / Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
To
1.The Secretary to Government,
Ministry of Housing and Urban Development,
Fort.St.George,
Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Member Secretary,
Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority,
Thalamuthu Natarajan Building,
No.8, Gandhi Irwin Road, Chennai – 600 008.
3.The Commissioner,
Corporation of Madras,
Chennai – 600 009.
47/48
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.5664 of 2025
V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.
krk/nl
W.P.No.5664 of 2025
22.04.2026
48/48
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
