Disposed

G.Srinivasan, Be(Elecl)., Llb, v. Member Secretary

Madras HC12 Dec 2024WP/1079/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought directions against CMDA and a builder over unauthorised conversions in common areas of an apartment and redistribution of unallotted UDS land. The Court noted violations had been removed per CMDA's status report, directed removal of any subsisting violations and restoration per approved plan, but held UDS redistribution was beyond Article 226, granting liberty to approach the civ

What did the court decide?

CMDA to remove any subsisting violations and restore building as per approved plan; liberty granted to seek UDS redistribution before civil court.

G.Srinivasan, Be(Elecl)., Llb, Vs Member Secretary — Municipal and Town Planning | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

W.P.No.1079 of 2024

¶2

THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 12.12.2024

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN

¶6

W.P.No.1079 of 2024 and

¶7

W.M.P.No.1140 of 2024

¶8

G.Srinivasan ...Petitioner-in-person

¶9

Vs.

¶10

1.Member Secretary, Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority, Thazha Muthu Natarajan Building, Egmore, Chennai.

¶11

2.SH.MS Ramesh ...Respondents

¶12

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, invoking the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in Abbotsbury Owners' Association Vs. CMDA (20.01.2023) and then upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) No.16011/2023 dated 17.07.2023 and direct

¶13

1/6

¶14

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶15

W.P.No.1079 of 2024

¶16

A. The respondent-1 to relegate the unauthorised conversions of buildings in the common Non-FSI areas of the Apartment of Surendra Homes, No. 1, Pammal Main Road, Pallavaram Constructed by respondent -2 and retained by the respondent-2 since-2009, such as Pump-Room into a Workshop, Electrical Room into a Store-room and two toilets in the StiltFloor, Gas-Room(not in use), in the Terrace Floor and the 36th Flat denoted as Flat-409 that are covered within 10% of the Total constructed area of the building as allowed under Development Regulations-2008 of CMDA and consequently direct respondent 1 to take over these buildings in the Non-FSI areas and hand-over to the association of Owners (SHAOWA)within fifteen days of this Petition.

¶17

B. Direct the Respondent-2 re-distribute the unallotted UDS area of 791 Sq.ft of the total Land of 24224 Sq.Ft. to the current 35 Flat-owners of the apartment in proportion to the area of the flats they hold and these rectification Deeds are re-registered at the office of the SRO, Pallavaram, with the stamp Duty and other expenses and costs payable by the respondents-2 within a period of sixty days of the petition.

¶18

For Petitioner : Mr.G.Srinivasan, Party-in-person For 1^st Respondent : Mr.Y.Bhuvanesh Kumar

¶19

For 2^nd Respondent: Mr.Arun Anbumani For Mr.M.Nandakumar

¶20

¶21

2/6

¶22

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶23

W.P.No.1079 of 2024

¶24

J U D G M E N T

¶25

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by R.SUBRAMANIAN, J. )

¶26

From the status report filed by the Member Secretary of the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority, it is clear that the building had several violations, all at the instance of the builder viz., the 2^nd respondent. From the report it is found that all the violated portions have been removed. If there is any other violations subsisting the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority will go ahead and remove all the violated constructions forthwith. The Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority will ensure that the building is restored as per the approved plan, not even an inch of the violation shall be permitted to remain.

¶27

2. As regards the second prayer, the petitioner wants re-distribution of

¶28

the UDS area, which cannot be done in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, liberty is granted to the petitioner to move the appropriate civil Court seeking such re-distribution, if he is so advised.

¶29

3/6

¶30

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶31

W.P.No.1079 of 2024

¶32

3. The Writ Petition is disposed of with the above observations. No

¶33

costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶34

(R.S.M., J.) (C.K., J.) 12.12.2024

¶35

dsa

¶36

Index : No Neutral Citation : No Speaking order

¶37

4/6

¶38

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶39

W.P.No.1079 of 2024

¶40

¶41

The Member Secretary, Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority, Thazha Muthu Natarajan Building, Egmore, Chennai.

¶42

5/6

¶43

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶44

W.P.No.1079 of 2024

¶45

R.SUBRAMANIAN, J. and C.KUMARAPPAN, J.

¶46

dsa

¶47

W.P.No.1079 of 2024

¶48

12.12.2024

¶49

6/6

¶50

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

G.Srinivasan, Be(Elecl)., Llb, v. Member Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G.Srinivasan, Be(Elecl)., Llb, v. Member Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M.a.Panchatcharam Vs v.Shanthi

R.Ramalingam Vs Chinnaponnu

J. Sivakumar Vs The Post Master General

M/S.v.G.N.Homes Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Member Secretary

S.Ramesh Vs State of Tamil Nadu

D.Ravi Vs the Special Tahsidar (La) Unit