G.KANAGARAJ vs The Director of Town and country Planning — WP/20430/2026
Case under Others Section 1. Next hearing: : -.
CNR: HCMA011040142026
Filing Number
WP/77233/2026
Filing Date
28-Apr-2026
Registration No
WP/20430/2026
Registration Date
21-May-2026
Judge
Honourable Mr Justice M.dhandapani
Coram
Honourable Mr Justice M.dhandapani
Bench Type
Single Bench
Category
Local Authorities ( 103 )
Judicial Branch
WRITSECTION
Last updated 10-Jun-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.G.KANAGARAJ
Adv. Deepanuday,V.K.VENGADESH DURAI RAJA,V.K.VENGADESH DURAI RAJA, V.K.VENGADESH DURAI RAJA
-
2.V.G.Janani
-
3.K.Vijayakrishnan
Respondent(s)
-
1.The Director of Town and country Planning
-
2.The Member Secretary,(i/c)
-
3.The Commissioner
-
4.The Sub Registrar
-
5.G.Elango
Case History
-
—
Next hearingPending
-
08-Jun-2026
Honourable Mr Justice M.dhandapaniView PDF
Case Summary: WP No. 20430/2026 Outcome: Interim stay granted with multiple restraining orders. The High Court of Madras granted an interim stay of the Director of Town and Country Planning's cancellation order (dated 07.02.2026) that revoked the petitioners' previously regularized layout. The court restrained respondents 1-4 from interfering with petitioners' possession of plots 1-36 and 40, prohibited coercive action on the cancellation order, maintained status quo, restrained the 5th respondent from alienating his plot, and directed production of original DTCP files on the next hearing date. Case adjourned for counter-filing within four weeks. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
08-Jun-2026
For Admission
Honourable Mr Justice M.dhandapani
-
28-Apr-2026
Case filed
Registration No. WP/20430/2026
Case Summary: WP No. 20430/2026 Outcome: Interim stay granted with multiple restraining orders. The High Court of Madras granted an interim stay of the Director of Town and Country Planning's cancellation order (dated 07.02.2026) that revoked the petitioners' previously regularized layout. The court restrained respondents 1-4 from interfering with petitioners' possession of plots 1-36 and 40, prohibited coercive action on the cancellation order, maintained status quo, restrained the 5th respondent from alienating his plot, and directed production of original DTCP files on the next hearing date. Case adjourned for counter-filing within four weeks. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts