Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(Mad) 1062

SANJAY V. GANGAPURWALA, D. BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
Chennai Hiranandani Residents Welfare Association – Appellant
Versus
Secretary, Housing and Urban Development Department – Respondent

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr.K.Ravi, Senior Counsel for Mr.Rahul Balaji
For the Respondents: Mr.A.Edwin Prabakar, State Government Pleader, Asst. by Mr.T.K.Saravanan, Mr.Srinath Sridevan, Senior Counsel for Mr.M.S.Murali,

Judgement Key Points

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 (!) (!) .

What is required under Section 14(2)(ii) of the RERA Act for modifications to sanctioned plans affecting common areas?

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 - I

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2024 Supreme(Mad) 1062

SANJAY V. GANGAPURWALA, D. BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHYChennai Hiranandani Residents Welfare Association – AppellantVersusSecretary, Housing and Urban Development Department – Respondent

What is required under Section 14(2)(ii) of the RERA Act for modifications to sanctioned plans affecting common areas?

SANJAY V. GANGAPURWALA, D. BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
Chennai Hiranandani Residents Welfare Association – Appellant
Versus
Secretary, Housing and Urban Development Department – Respondent