The third respondent lacks authority to sell common areas designated for essential amenities within the industrial estate, reaffirming the rights of the Association to maintain common facilities.

COMMON O RDER

Both the Writ Petitions have been filed challenging the impugned Advertisement dated 18.01.2021 and 21.01.2021 pertaining to Plot No.L-19B in Phase II and Plot No. I-9A in Phase I of the Vikram Sarabhai Instronics Estate on the file of the third respondent for outright sale.

2. The petitioner is an Association, which was formed with an object to promote and protect the members/units under the Vikram Sarabhai Industrial Estate, located at Thiruvanmiyur, Chennai, comprising in 28.91 acres, forming part of Phase I and Phase II of the Estate. All the owners of the units in the Estate are the members of the petitioner's Association. The first respondent had set up various industrial estates to develop industries, in which, one such Industrial Estate, was proposed in the year 1970. It was implemented under two phases, viz., Phase I and Phase II, in which, Phase I is about 10.27 acres consisting of 31 units (Type 1 Unit – 13 Nos and Type 2 Unit – 18 Nos) and Phase II was put up with an extent of 18.64 acres consisting of 67 units. After finalising the draft form of allotment, the first respondent issued G.O.Ms.No. 1131 Ind (Apl.) dated 28.04.1971, thereby ordered draft allotment letter appended thereto.

3. Accordingly, the unit will be allotted on a lease-cum-sale on higher purchase basis subject to certain conditions. It provides that the pro rata cost of land per unit has been arrived and the expenditure incurred on common amenities. The consideration towards the allotment would include the cost of maintenance, common amenities and facilities, such as roads, drainages and street lighting to be provided by the first respondent for the benefit of the unit holders. The cost of land is divided on the units on a pro rata basis on the cost of construction and loading per block worked out. Therefore, the respondent cannot deal or encumber any portion of the land within the Estate. In respect of the land, which is meant for common use of the estate occupants, for the purpose of putting up an administrative building, creche and installation of over-head tank etc.

4. Likewise, Phase II of the Estate constitutes 67 units, which had been purchased by 67 holders, who are also members of the petitioner's Association. The maintenance of the Estate was vested with the second respondent. After purchase of all the units in Phase I and Phase II, the petitioner's Association was formed and registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act , 1975 on 23.05.1996. Thereafter, the petitioner requested the second respondent seeking permission to maintain the Estate. The second respondent, vide its letter dated 15.09.1998, called for proposal. Thereafter, on 15.09.1999, the second respondent informed the petitioner suggesting to hand over the maintenance of the Estate to the petitioner and sought for concurrence to take over the day to day maintenance of the Estate. Thereafter, the petitioner had taken over the day to day maintenance of the Estate and the same was also duly informed, by a communication dated 18.01.2000, that the petitioner had constituted a Committee for maintenance of the Estate. Though the entire maintenance was not handed over to the petitioner, the petitioner had maintained the Estate with the help of the members ; attended to important maintenance related requirements as if the maintenance was by the second respondent.

5. While being so, there were inter-se estate disputes between the members and the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner made request to the second respondent to t