High Court Cannot Pass Inconsistent Orders: Supreme Court Quashes Demolition Order Passed Despite Earlier Restraint In CMDA Regularisation Dispute

"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." Supreme Court, in a significant ruling, held that High Courts cannot issue demolition directions when an earlier binding coordinate bench order has explicitly restrained coercive action pending determination of the statutory regularisation scheme by the top court.

A bench comprising Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar set aside a Division Bench order of the Madras High Court that had ordered the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority (CMDA) to pull down alleged unauthorised constructions, observing that judicial discipline mandates consistency and adherence to interim protection already operating between the same parties.

The dispute arose over alleged unauthorised construction and deviations in a commercial-cum-residential building named 'Indira Arcade' in Chennai, where the appellants owned multiple floors and the first respondent occupied a portion on the second floor. Following successive rounds of litigation, the appellants applied for regularisation under Section 113-C of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971, leading the Madras High Court in September 2023 to restrain the CMDA from taking coercive steps until the Supreme Court decided the overarching challenge to the regularisation rules. However, on a subsequent writ petition filed by the first respondent, another Division Bench of the High Court on April 28, 2025, ordered demolition of the disputed structures within eight weeks, prompting the appellants to approach the apex court.

The primary question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court was justified in directing the CMDA to demolish the unauthorised deviations despite an earlier binding order restraining coercive action during the pendency of regularisation proceedings before the apex court. The court was also called upon to determine whether inconsistent orders could be passed against the same statutory authority and private parties over the identical subject matter.

High Court Overlooked Its Own Prior Restraint Order

The bench observed that the Madras High Court had previously disposed of Writ Petition No. 25737 of 2023 on September 27, 2023, specifically protecting the appellants from coercive action. That protection was granted because the broader question regarding the constitutional validity of Government Order Nos. 110 and 111 dated June 22, 2017, framed under Section 113-C of the Act of 1971, was pending adjudication before the Supreme Court in M/s Billroth Hospital Ltd. v. The State of Tamil Nadu.

"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."

Passing Inconsistent Orders On Same Subject Matter Impermissible

Writing for the bench, Justice Chandurkar emphasised that judicial propriety required the High Court to consider its previous directions rather than issuing contradictory mandates that put statutory authorities in a legal quandary. The court observed that the first respondent herself was fully aware of the pending regularisation application under Section 113-C, as evidenced by the averments made in her own writ affidavit.

Pendency Of Regularisation Framework Before Supreme Court Warrants Status Quo

The bench pointed out that the Division Bench in the impugned order erroneously treated the regularisation application as non-maintainable without appreciating that the invalidation of the state government orders in C. Prabhakaran v. Dharmendra Pratap Yadav was sub-judice in appeal before the Supreme Court. The bench noted that issuing a demolition directive while the regularisation framework remained seized by the apex court resulted in conflicting judicial orders concerning the very same premises.

"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."

Final Directions And Status Quo Order

Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court quashed the High Court's demolition order and restored the operational primacy of the earlier order dated September 27, 2023. The apex court directed all parties, including the CMDA and private respondents, to maintain status quo regarding the building's construction until the legal validity of the regularisation regime under Section 113-C is definitively settled in the pending batch of civil appeals.

The Supreme Court reiterated that contradictory orders on the same subject matter undermine judicial certainty and cannot be sustained. By setting aside the High Court's demolition directive and ordering status quo, the apex court preserved the rights of property owners to await final adjudication on statutory regularisation schemes without the imminent threat of irreversible demolition.

Date of Decision: August 22, 2026