Subsisting No-Coercive-Action Orders Must Prevail Until the Regularisation Dispute Is Finally Decided

1. Introduction

This judgment concerns allegedly unauthorised construction and building-plan deviations in “Indira Arcade” in Chennai. The appellants owned portions from the ground floor to the fourth floor, while the first respondent occupied a portion on the second floor and claimed rights as a co-owner. She sought action by the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority (“CMDA”) against the alleged deviations.

The immediate question was not whether the disputed construction was lawful or ultimately capable of regularisation. The central issue was whether the Madras High Court could direct demolition in 2025 despite its earlier order of 27 September 2023 restraining the CMDA from taking coercive action until the Supreme Court decided the pending controversy concerning regularisation under Section 113-C of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971.

The Supreme Court held that the later demolition direction was legally unsustainable because it conflicted with the earlier subsisting order involving the same parties and subject matter.

2. Factual and Procedural Background

1. The first respondent’s father initially approached the High Court in 2017, complaining of unauthorised construction by the appellants.
2. On 28 March 2018, the High Court directed rectification of the violated portions. The appellants subsequently stated that they had removed the fifth floor and internal basement partitions and had made the basement available for parking.
3. On 6 June 2018, the appellants applied for regularisation of the remaining deviations under Section 113-C of the 1971 Act read with G.O. Nos.110 and 111 dated 22 June 2017.
4. On 28 June 2018, the High Court recorded the appellants’ undertaking and noted that the regularisation application concerning the fourth floor was pending.
5. Following another representation by the first respondent, the CMDA issued a report/order dated 9 August 2023 identifying deviations and unauthorised construction that allegedly continued to exist.
6. The appellants challenged that report in Writ Petition No.25737/2023. On 27 September 2023, the High Court directed the CMDA not to take coercive steps until the Supreme Court decided the pending litigation concerning the validity and scope of the regularisation regime.
7. The first respondent subsequently filed Writ Petition No.12779/2024 seeking enforcement action. On 28 April 2025, another Division Bench directed the CMDA to remove the unauthorised portions within eight weeks, notwithstanding the pending regularisation application.
8. The appellants challenged that demolition direction before the Supreme Court.

3. Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court’s order dated 28 April 2025. It held that:

• The CMDA remained governed by the High Court’s earlier order dated 27 September 2023.
• That order expressly restrained coercive action pending the Supreme Court’s decision on the regularisation controversy.
• The later demolition direction created inconsistent judicial commands concerning the same parties, building and alleged deviations.
• The High Court ought to have considered and respected its earlier operative order.
• Status quo must be maintained until the pending civil appeals concerning regularisation are decided.

The Court did not decide whether the construction was lawful, whether the appellants were entitled to regularisation, or whether G.O. Nos.110 and 111 were valid.

4. Analysis

4.1 The governing legal principle

The judgment establishes that a court should not issue a later direction that directly contradicts an earlier subsisting order governing the same parties and subject matter. Until the earlier order is modified, vacated or rendered ineffective by a final decision, administrative authorities and parties remain bound by it.

This principle reflects judicial consistency, certainty and institutional discipline. An authority such as the CMDA cannot simultaneously be directed not to take coercive action and also be ordered to demolish the same construction within a fixed period.

4.2 Precedents and earlier decisions cited

K. Perumal Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Secretary to Government and others

This decision was relied upon in the High Court’s order dated 27 September 2023. In that matter, the High Court had observed that parties could pursue their remedies after the Supreme Court decided the pending challenge concerning the regularisation framework. All contentions were kept open in the meantime.

That approach directly influenced the protective order in favour of the appellants: enforcement was deferred, without deciding the merits, until the Supreme Court settled the broader legal issue.

C. Prabhakaran v. Dharmendra Pratap Yadav & Ors.

In this proceeding, the Madras High Court, by order dated 6 February 2019, held G.O. Nos.110 and 111 dated 22 June 2017 to be invalid. Those Government Orders formed the basis upon which the appellants sought regularisation under Section 113-C.

The invalidation of the Government Orders created uncertainty regarding the maintainability of regularisation applications filed under them. This did not, however, finally conclude the issue because the decision was challenged before the Supreme Court.

M/s Billroth Hospital Ltd. v. The State of Tamil Nadu

The challenge to the invalidation of G.O. Nos.110 and 111 was pending before the Supreme Court in this matter, along with other connected civil appeals. Although no final precedent had yet emerged from those appeals, their pendency was crucial to the present decision.

The Supreme Court treated the pending appeals as the reason why the High Court had earlier ordered that no coercive steps be taken. The Court therefore preserved the existing position until the regularisation controversy could be authoritatively resolved.

4.3 Legal reasoning

The Supreme Court’s reasoning proceeded through the following steps:

1. The order dated 27 September 2023 was passed in proceedings between the appellants and the CMDA and concerned the same alleged construction deviations.
2. That order directed the CMDA to await the Supreme Court’s decision and expressly prohibited coercive action in the meantime.
3. The underlying regularisation issue remained pending before the Supreme Court when the later writ petition was decided.
4. The High Court’s later direction to demolish the construction within eight weeks was incompatible with its earlier no-coercive-action direction.
5. Because the earlier order had neither been set aside nor modified, the later Division Bench was required to take it into account.
6. The inconsistent demolition order was therefore unsustainable and had to be set aside.

The decision is thus based principally on the binding effect of an operative judicial order and the need to avoid contradictory directions. It is not an endorsement of unauthorised construction.

4.4 Limits of the ruling

The judgment should not be read as creating a general rule that merely filing a regularisation application automatically prevents demolition. The decisive circumstance was the existence of a specific earlier order restraining coercive action pending adjudication of the broader legal controversy.

Nor did the Court hold that the appellants’ regularisation application must be allowed. Once the pending civil appeals are decided, all parties remain free to take appropriate steps in accordance with that decision.

4.5 Potential impact

• Consistency in judicial orders: Subsequent Benches must examine earlier operative orders involving the same parties and subject matter before granting relief.
• Protection of administrative authorities: Public bodies should not be placed under mutually contradictory judicial obligations.
• Regularisation disputes: Courts may preserve the status quo where the validity of the governing regularisation scheme is itself pending before a higher court.
• No validation of illegality: Interim protection does not confer legality on an unauthorised structure or create a vested right to regularisation.
• Future enforcement: Demolition, regularisation or other action may proceed after the Supreme Court resolves the pending challenges, subject to the outcome and applicable law.

5. Complex Concepts Simplified

Section 113-C regularisation

Regularisation is a statutory process through which certain constructions made contrary to approved plans may be retrospectively accepted, subject to prescribed conditions. Applying for regularisation does not necessarily mean that approval will be granted.

Coercive steps

“Coercive steps” include compulsory enforcement measures such as sealing, locking or demolishing the disputed construction.

Status quo

A status quo order requires the existing state of affairs to be preserved. In this case, the disputed construction cannot be demolished under the impugned direction, while the parties also cannot alter the existing position pending the connected proceedings.

Inter partes order

This means an order operating between the parties to the particular litigation. Even if a broader legal question remains unresolved, those parties must obey the order unless it is modified or set aside.

Pending regularisation proceedings

The pendency of an application does not itself legalise the construction. Here, its relevance arose together with the specific judicial order postponing coercive action until the governing law was clarified.

6. Conclusion

G. SATHYANARAYANA BOTHRA v. M.D. LOKESWARI reinforces the requirement of coherence and continuity in judicial decision-making. A later order cannot direct demolition where an earlier subsisting order concerning the same parties and property expressly prohibits coercive action until a pending legal issue is resolved.

The Supreme Court therefore restored the protection granted on 27 September 2023 and directed maintenance of status quo. Importantly, the ruling neither regularises the disputed construction nor determines the validity of the relevant Government Orders. Its principal significance lies in affirming that operative judicial orders must be respected and conflicting commands must be avoided until the controlling legal dispute is finally decided.