SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Mad) 2088

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RMT. TEEKAA RAMAN, J.
Chennai Hiranandani Residents Welfare Association, Rep. by its Secretary N. Venkatathri, Chennai – Appellant
Versus
The Secretary, Housing and Urban Development Department, Chennai & Others – Respondents
Writ Petition No. 3935 of 2023 & WMP Nos. 3999 & 6484 of 2023
Decided On : 04-07-2023

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner:Rahul Balaji, Advocate. For the Respondents:R1 & R2, R. Shanmuga Sundaram, Advocate General, Assisted by S. Mythreye Chandru, Spl. Govt. Pleader, R3, AR.L. Sundaresan, P.S. Raman, Sr. Counsels, G. Vivekanand, Varuni Mohan, Advocate.

The main legal point established in the judgment is that the DTCP approval for construction was sustainable in law and did not violate the legal rights of the petitioners.

Headnote:

DTCP Approval - Homeowners Association Challenge - Real Estate Regulation and Development Act, 2016, Tamil Nadu Combined Development Control Rules, 2019 - The court held that the DTCP approval for the construction of twin towers in place of the Club House was sustainable in law and dismissed the writ petition. The court also awarded costs to be paid by the petitioner association to the 3rd respondent.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a homeowners association, challenged the DTCP approval for the construction of twin towers in place of the Club House, alleging violation of the Real Estate Regulation and Development Act, 2016 and interference with their vested rights over the amenities.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the DTCP approval was sustainable in law and dismissed the writ petition. The court also awarded costs to be paid by the petitioner association to the 3rd respondent.

Issues: The issues involved the validity of the DTCP approval, alleged violation of the Real Estate Regulation and Development Act, 2016, and interference with the homeowners' vested rights over the amenities.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the consent required under Section 14 of the Real Estate Regulation and Development Act, 2016 was exempted for the project falling under Explanation II to Rule 4 of the RERA Rules. The court also found that the individual members of the association had given specific consent in their building agreements. Additionally, the court noted that the impugned approval was not violative of any legal rights of the petitioners and was passed after following due process of law and compliance with necessary procedures.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition, vacated the stay granted, and allowed the vacate stay petition. The petitioner association was directed to pay costs of Rs.1,19,500 to the 3rd respondent within eight weeks.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the 2nd respondent in DTCP approval bearing Na.Ka.No.2081/2020/MLPC(C.M-5) dated 19.11.2020 and to quash the same, as illegal and contrary to law and consequently, forbear the 3rd respondent from continuing with the illegal construction of new towers, namely Octavius and Verona in the location of the clubhouse for Phase II and from marketing / selling flats in the 3rd respondent’s development “House of Hiranandani” situated in Egattur, Chennai, without abiding by the original DTCP plan approved in 2016 and complete the construction of the second Clubhouse in Phase II strictly, in accordance with the plan approved in 2012 vide Na.Ka.No.9787/2012 dated 15.06.2012 along with building permit No.Mu.U.KA.No.59 dated 15.10.2012 issued by Muttukkadu Gram Panchayat and revised and renewed by Mamallapuram Local Planning Authority on 28.01.2016.)

By consent of both the parties, main writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal and orders have been passed, after hearing all the parties.

2. The petitioner is a registered association of homeowners in Hiranandani Upscale, a residential complex, situated in the petition mentioned premises.

3. The writ petition is filed challenging the DTCP approval bearing Na.Ka.No.2081/2020/MLPC(C.M-5) dated 19.11.2020 issued by the 2nd respondent to the 3rd respondent (henceforth referred to as the “Impugned Plan Approval”) in as much as the DTCP Plan approved in 2012 vide Na.Ka.No.9787/2012 dated 15.06.2012, along with building permit No.Mu.U.KA.No.59 dated 15.10.2012 issued by Muttukkadu Gram Panchayat and revised and renewed by Mamallapuram Local Planning Authority on 28.01.2016 has been amended, primarily on the ground that without consent of the owners of the flats and without even informing them of the same.

4. The short facts that are relevant for the determination of this lis, are as under:

(i) The petitioner is an Association of the Owners of Flats whereupon the 3rd respondent, Hiranandani Realtors Private Limited (HRPL) promoted a Township, Gated Community project of building integrated Tower Blocks of Apartments of varying sizes under the name and style, “House of Hiranandani”, earlier known as “ Hiranandani Upscale”.

(ii) As per the affidavit of the petitioner, House of Hiranandani (HOH), Chennai, is a township project being developed by the 3rd respondent over the land measuring 120 acres in the village Egattur, Chennai, in phases. The 3rd respondent initially obtained plan approval from the 2nd respondent in 2012 as stated above for development of 14 towers in two phases along with a school, and two Club Houses one for each phase, first one in Phase-I and the second in Phase-II.

(iii) The 3rd respondent commenced construction of Phase-I in 2009 consisting of seven towers, Greenwood, Brentwood, Bridgewood, Brichwood, Pinewood, Seawood and Oceanic. All seven towers were constructed parallelly and were handed over to the buyers from 2012. The Club House for Phase-I was completed and was made operational only in 2014.

(iv) After the inauguration of the Phase-I Club House in 2014, the 3rd respondent commenced construction of Phase-II in the year 2014 consisting of Bayview, Edina, Sinovia, Tiana, Amalfi, Anchorage and Seagull. Unlike Phase-I, construction of all towers was not taken up parallelly, Edina and Sinovia were completed in 2014, Bayview was completed in 2016 and Tiana and Amalfi were completed in 2019, construction of Seagull has been deferred by the 3rd respondent for reasons best known to them.

(v) It is a specific plea raised by the petitioner that though Phase-II is almost complete, there is no step taken or commencement of construction of a Club House in Phase-II. On the contrary, the 3rd respondent has started building two towers namely Octavius and Verona in t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top