The Madras High Court has quashed a Greater Chennai Corporation (GCC) notice directing the removal of an alleged encroachment by a temple structure within seven days, holding that the civic body had “pre-judged the issue” and violated mandatory principles of natural justice [Jaya Vs District Collector].

A Division Bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice G Arul Murugan passed the order on February 19 in a petition filed by a person named Jaya, challenging the Corporation’s notice dated September 15, 2025.

The Court held that, going by the text and tenor of the notice, it was clear that the GCC had jumped to a conclusion that there was encroachment before giving the alleged encroacher an opportunity to defend against such an allegation.

"If that be the text and tenor of the notice, it is clear that the authorities have pre-judged the issue and have already taken a decision requiring the petitioner to remove the so-called encroachment in seven days," February 19 ruling said.

The case concerns a temple located in Ward 34, Zone 4 of Kodungaiyur, Chennai. The Corporation issued a notice stating that a field inspection conducted pursuant to earlier court directions had found that the temple stood on land belonging to the Greater Chennai Corporation and was encroaching upon a public road.

The notice, issued under Section 128 of the Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Act, 1998, directed the petitioner to remove the alleged encroachment within seven days. It warned that failure to do so would result in the Corporation removing the structure without further notice and recovering the costs of demolition from the petitioner.

The petitioner argued that the notice violated an earlier order of the High Court passed in November 2024 in litigation initiated by a private respondent alleging encroachment.

In that earlier order, the Court had directed a Divisional Monitoring Committee to examine whether encroachment existed and provide “adequate and ample opportunity” to the alleged encroachers to present their explanations before taking any action.

The petitioner contended that instead of issuing a proper show-cause notice and supplying the inspection report, the authorities issued a removal notice straightaway.

The Corporation argued that the communication should be treated as a show-cause notice. The Bench rejected this submission after examining the text of the notice.

The Court noted that the notice did not invite any explanation or defence from the petitioner and instead threatened removal without further notice and recovery of demolition costs.

“It appears that when the action was called in question in the Court, it is sought to be defended by treating the order as notice. That cannot be allowed," the Court said.

The Bench held that the notice skipped the safeguards mandated in the earlier round of litigation and directly moved to the final stage of removal.

“The impugned notice takes the final step… without complying with the direction issued… earlier. Therefore, the impugned notice is clearly in the teeth of the order passed by this Court earlier," it ruled.

The Court examined Section 128 of the Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Act, which permits the removal of immovable encroachments only after issuing a show-cause notice and considering representations within the prescribed time.

The Bench emphasised that compliance with natural justice is essential when civil consequences arise.

“It is sine qua non for exercise of power of removal that the person against whom the said action is proposed should be given a show cause notice, representation received and consideration by due application of mind," the Court underscored.

Referring to the Constitution Bench judgment in Mohinder Singh Gill v Chief Election Commissioner, the Court reiterated that compliance with natural justice is an “inviolable rule.”

Holding that the notice could not be sustained in law, the Court set it aside. It granted liberty to the Corporation to initiate fresh proceedings by issuing a proper show-cause notice, supplying the inspection report, providing a reasonable opportunity to respond and thereafter acting in accordance with law.

The petitioner was represented by Advocate Kamachi

The State was represented by Advocate Habeeb Rahman

The State's HR&CE Department was represented by Advocate Arun Natrajan

The Chennai Corporation was represented by Advocate Arun Babu

[Read Judgment]