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 redevelopment projects.

ORDER :

V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.

The petitioner challenges the proceedings of the 2^nd respondent, calling upon the petitioner to give certain clarifications, in particular Item Nos. 49 and 51, by its e-mail dated 25.01.2025.

2. The petitioner states that she and 23 other individuals are the owners of the properties situated in Town Survey Numbers in T.S.Nos.13/9, 13/3, 18/14, 17/1 & 17/5, 13/1, 13/2 & 13/6 and S.No.138 of Athipattu Village, Ambattur Taluk, Tiruvallur District. The petitioner and the 23 other individuals had entered into a Development Agreement with one M/s.Alacrity Housing Limited . The said builder had applied for and obtained planning permit from the 2^nd respondent to put up 448 residential houses in 6 phases.

3. It is not in dispute that before the completion of the project, M/s.Alacrity Housing Limited ran into certain problems. It had developed only 224 units out of the total 448 units. In addition, in Phase III, though it had proposed to develop 80 units and odd, only 16 were so developed and the remaining 64 were developed partially. Out of the 64 incomplete units, M/s.Alacrity Housing Limited has allotted 8 residential units for certain individuals. Even amongst 224 units, sale deeds were executed only in favour of 111 allottees. Even as on today, 112 residents are without a sale deed. The land on which the 224 units have been put up belonged to 20 individuals including the petitioner. The entire 8.14 acres had belonged to these individuals. It is through them that the residents of 224 units can claim title.

4. Since Phases IV to VI were not completed, the petitioner and the 23 other persons decided to develop the same. By the time, they conceived the idea of developing the remaining area, the planning permit issued to M/s.Alacrity Housing Limited had expired on 15.10.2003. Hence, the petitioner filed an application before the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority (“CMDA”) with a proposal for construction of High Rise Group Development Residential cum Commercial Project over the aforesaid survey numbers.

5. The CMDA/2^nd respondent did not agree to the proposal made by the writ petitioner and 23 others, and rejected the same. Aggrieved by the said order, an appeal was preferred by them before the 1^st respondent, invoking Section 79 of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act , 1971. The Government, following the procedures, placed the matter before the Appeal Committee. The Appeal Committee held on 07.07.2022 had passed the following order:

“The Appeal committee deliberated the above issue in detail. It was also recorded by the committee that the new “Apartment Ownership Bill-2022 ” passed by the Legislative Assembly of Tamil Nadu is awaiting for the assent of the President of India and it also has a similar provision of 2/3^rd consent for re-development. The committee suggested Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority to re-examine the planning permission application as per Tamil Nadu Combined Development and Building Rules , 2019 after obtaining undertaking for construction shall be commenced only after production of consent from the existing flat owners.

The Committee directed the appellant’s that the undivided share of land of existing flat owners as per their agreement shall be maintained. Before commencement of construction in the proposed development