Flat owners sought removal of alleged unauthorised commercial use of basement car-parking area sold by the builder. With a statutory revision pending before the Government, the court directed disposal of that revision within 16 weeks and de-sealing of the premises pending its outcome.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
W.P.No.28338 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 26.03.2024
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S. SUNDAR AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. SENTHILKUMAR
W.P.No.28338 of 2023 and
W.M.P.No.27881 of 2023
1.M.B.Ravindran 2.Sandya Manohar 3.Sabina Michael Fernando @ Sabina Sampath 4.P.Chandramohan 5.Satish Chander 6.S.Ramakrishnan 7.B.Valli 8.R.Pratap Raghava 9.Rani Patrica 10.A.Jayanthi 11.Abdul Kader Ashraf Ali 12.K.Mohan 13.Vijay Balan 14.D.Balachandar 15.C.Thyagaraj 16.R.Sathyalakshmi ... Petitioners
Vs.
Page 1
W.P.No.28338 of 2023
Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to direct the 1st respondent to take necessary steps and action to remove the unauthorised construction made in the basement area of the premises bearing Door No.4/154F and 4/154F, Manapakkam Main Road, Sriji Apartments, Manapakkam, Chennai – 600 125, comprised in Survey No.45/3, New Survey No.45/3B of Manapakkam Village, previously Sriperumbadur Taluk, Kancheepuram District, presently, Alandur Taluk, Chennai District, within the limits of Greater Chennai Corporation, within a stipulated time frame.
Page 2
W.P.No.28338 of 2023
| For Petitioners | : | M/s.V.Meenakshi Sundaram |
|---|---|---|
| For R1 | : | Mrs.R.Thamaraiselvan Standing Counsel |
| For R2 | : | Mr.D.B.R.Prabhu |
| Standing Counsel | ||
| For R3 | : | Mr.V.Karthikeyan |
O R D E R
(Order of the Court was made by S.S. SUNDAR, J. )
This writ petition is filed for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to direct
the 1st respondent to take necessary steps and action to remove the unauthorised construction made in the basement area of the premises bearing Door No.4/154F and 4/154F, Manapakkam Main Road, Sriji Apartments, Manapakkam, Chennai – 600 125, comprised in Survey No.45/3, New Survey No.45/3B of Manapakkam Village, previously Sriperumbadur Taluk, Kancheepuram District, presently, Alandur Taluk, Chennai District, within the limits of Greater Chennai Corporation, within a stipulated time frame.
Page 3
W.P.No.28338 of 2023
2.One M/s.Srinathji Developers had put up residential apartments in the name and style of “SRIJI APARTMENTS” at Door No.4/154F and 4/154G, Manapakkam Main Road, Manapakkam Village, Sriperumbadur Taluk, Kancheepuram District. A planning permit and building plan approval was sanctioned by the MMDA by proceedings dated 25.01.1996 for construction of 20 Dwelling Units on the aforementioned land and it is specifically mentioned that the building plan sanctioned was only for residential purposes. The petitioners have purchased the flats. The 3rd respondent also purchased 1460 sq.ft. undivided share of land together with 4100 sq.ft. built up area in the basement of the building from another person who had purchased the building from the promoter. The sale deed obtained by the 3rd respondent is dated 15.07.2022. It is the case of the petitioners that the builder has sold the basement area for commercial purposes and the same is illegal. It is specifically stated that the basement area is meant for
car parking and therefore, permitting commercial activities in the basement area requires prior sanction from the appropriate authorities. The grievance of the petitioners is that the 3rd respondent cannot claim right over the
Page 4
W.P.No.28338 of 2023
basement area in the absence of any prior approval obtained from the appropriate authorities.
3.Learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent submits that an order was passed against the 3rd respondent for locking and sealing the premises and as against that order, the 3rd respondent has preferred a statutory revision in Appeal No.6416474 of 2023 before the Government under Section 80-A of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971. The learned counsel submits that, it is only after filing of this writ petition, the official respondents have locked and sealed the premises, even though the statutory revision filed by the 3rd respondent under Section 80-A of the Town and Country Planning Act is pending before the Government.
4.Since this Court is inclined to issue directions to the Government for disposal of the statutory revision, this Court suo motu impleads the Principal Secretary to Government, Housing and Urban Development Department, Secretariat, Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009, as 4th respondent in this writ petition.
Page 5
W.P.No.28338 of 2023
iii. Depends upon the outcome of the revision that is now pending before
Page 6
W.P.No.28338 of 2023
the 4th respondent, it is open to the official respondents to take further
action in the manner known to law, without further reference to this
Court.
6.With the above directions, this writ petition is disposed of. No
costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
(S.S.S.R., J.) (N.S., J.) 26.03.2024
mkn
Internet : Yes Index : Yes / No Neutral Citation : Yes / No
To
2.The Commissioner, Greater Chennai Corporation, Poonamallee High Road, Chennai – 600 003.
Page 7
W.P.No.28338 of 2023
3.The Principal Secretary to Government, Housing and Urban Development Department, Secretariat, Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.
Page 8
W.P.No.28338 of 2023
S.S. SUNDAR, J. and N. SENTHILKUMAR, J.
mkn
W.P.No.28338 of 2023
26.03.2024
Page 9
2 issues framed by the court
Whether unauthorised commercial use of the basement area of Sriji Apartments without prior sanction should be removed by the authorities.
How the pending statutory revision under Section 80-A of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 against sealing of the premises should be handled.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
M.B.Ravindran
Sandya Manohar
Sabina Michael Fernando @ Sabina Sampath
P.Chandramohan
Satish Chander
S.Ramakrishnan
S.S. Sundar
N. Senthilkumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
