IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
THE HON'BLE MR.SANJAY V.GANGAPURWALA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
Chennai Hiranandani Residents Welfare Association – Appellant
Versus
The Secretary, Housing and Urban Development Department – Respondents
W.A.No.3328 of 2023
Decided on : 08-04-2024
Key Points: - The court quashed the DTCP approval for replacing the Phase-II clubhouse with residential towers (Octavius and Verona) due to lack of two-thirds consent from allottees (!) (!) (!) . - Section 14(2)(ii) of RERA mandates prior written consent of at least two-thirds of allottees for alterations to common areas in sanctioned plans (!) (!) (!) . - Common areas under Section 2(n) include the entire project land and community facilities like the clubhouse (!) (!) (!) . - Explanation II to Rule 4 of TNRERA Rules does not exempt consent requirement for modifications after project disclosure and partial execution (!) (!) (!) . - Clauses in construction agreements (e.g., Clause 10.3) do not constitute specific consent for altering promised amenities like the clubhouse (!) (!) (!) . - The planning authority must ensure RERA compliance and cannot grant approvals violating Section 14 (!) (!) . - Writ appeal allowed; developer may seek fresh two-thirds consent from allottees of seven Phase-II towers before reapplying (!) (!) .
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. writ appeal challenging a planning approval based on allegations of breach of promised community facilities. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. court's reasoning focused on the requirement for allottee consent in accordance with the rera act. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. final order quashing previous approval and outlining procedural requirements for alterations. (Para 7) |
JUDGMENT :
(Judgment made by the Hon'ble Mr Justice D.Bharatha Chakravarthy)
Prayer : Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent to set aside the order, dated 04.07.2023 passed in W.P.No.3935 of 2023 and allow the said Writ Petition as prayed for.
A. The Writ Appeal :
This Writ Appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge, dated 04.07.2023 in W.P.No.3935 of 2023. By the said order, the learned Single Judge dismissed the Writ Petition filed by the appellant Association with a cost of Rs.1,19,500/-. In the said Writ Petition, the appellant had challenged the DTCP approval, dated 19.11.2020 with a prayer to quash the same and consequently, to forbear the third 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 the flats in the third respondent's development "House of Hiranandani" situated in Egattur, Chennai without abiding by the original DTCP approved plan in respect of Phase - II, dated 15.06.2012 along with building permit, dated 15.10.2012 which is renewed on 28.01.2016.
B. The case of the appellant:
2. The appellant is a society registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975. It is the association of homeowners in Hiranandani Upscale, a residential complex situated at No.5/63, Old Mahabalipuram Road, Egattur Village, Chennai. The third respondent namely, M/s.Hiranandani Developers Private Limited permitted a township proposing to be a 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'. It is developed over the land measuring 120 acres in phases. The third respondent initially obtained plan approval from the second respondent namely, the Directorate of Town and Country Planning, Chengalpattu for the development of 14 towers in two phases along with a school, and two clubhouses, one for each phase, the first one in Phase - I and the second in Phase - II in the year 2012. The third respondent commenced construction of Phase - I in the year 2009 consisting of seven towers simultaneously and the individual flats were handed over to the buyer from the year 2012 onwards. The clubhouse for Phase - I was completed and was made operational in the year 2014.
2.1. The third respondent, thereafter, commenced construction of Phase - II in the year 2014. It originally consisted of seven towers namely, Bayview, Edina, Sinovia, Tiana, Amalfi, Anchorage and Seagull. Unlike Phase - I, the construction of all towers was not taken up simultaneously and the towers namely Edina and Sinovia were completed in the year 2014. Bayview was completed in the year 2016. Tiana and Amalfi were completed in the year 2019. The construction of Seagull has not yet been done. Though Phase - II is almost complete, steps were not taken for the construction of clubhouse in the Phase - II. While so, the third respondent started building two new towers namely, Octavius and Verona in the exact location in which the clubhouse for Phase - II is shown as per the approved plan vide Na.Ka.No.9787/2012, dated 15.06.2012 and the building permit No. Mu.U.Ka.No.59, dated 15.10.2012 issued by the Muttukkadu Gram Panchayat and revised and renewed by Mamallapuram Local Planning Authority on 28.01.2016. A change of use or such conversion is impermissible. Such change in the planning approval can be effected only after all the co-owners provide a No Objection Certificate. No such No Objection Certificate has been provided by the members of
Modifications to sanctioned real estate plans affecting common amenities require two-thirds consent from allottees, as mandated by the RERA Act.
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.
Consent of existing flat owners is mandatory for modifications to original building plans under relevant statutes, and failure to secure such consent renders subsequent constructions illegal.
The legislative authority for land and planning matters resides exclusively with the State, requiring adherence to state-specific planning laws, with necessary consents from all stakeholders for rede....
(1) Breach by planning authority of its obligation to ensure compliance with building regulations is actionable at instance of residents whose rights are infringed by violation of law. Their quality ....
The completion certificate issued must be strictly in accordance with the sanctioned plan and specifications, and the responsibilities of the promoter include providing and maintaining essential serv....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.