J.Bemina Vs Drectorate of Town and Country Planning

Mamallapuram Local Planning Authority Rep. By its Member Secretary cum Deputy Director of Town and Country Planning Five Rathams Shopping Complex Venpurusam Salai, Mamallapuram – 603 194

¶17

Page Nos.1/11

¶18

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

¶19

W.P.No.17321 of 2020

¶20

Mamallapuram Town Panchayat Rep. By its Executive Officer No.1, East Raja Street Mamallapuram

¶21

True Value Homes (TVH) India Pvt. Ltd., Mr.N.Ravichandran

¶22

Chairman MRC Nagar, Raja Annamalaipuram

¶23

Chennai – 600 028

¶24

TVH TAUS Apartment Owners Association (earlier named as TVH TAUS Flat Owners

¶25

Welfare Association) Rep. By its President Mr.M.Sakthivel

¶26

TVH TAUS Apartment Complex Natham Road, Egattur Navalur (Near Toll Plaza) OMR, Chennai – 603 103

¶27

M/s.TVH Infrastructure Chennai Private Limited Rep. By its Director No.21, C.V.Raman Road

¶28

Alwarpet, Chennai – 600 018

¶29

M/s.Kumeran Housing Private Limited Rep. By its Director No.1, V.O.C, 2^nd Main Road Kodambakkam Chennai – 600 024 ... Respondents

¶30

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the 2^nd respondent to take appropriate action to remove the unauthorized structure which is being

¶31

Page Nos.2/11

¶32

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

¶33

W.P.No.17321 of 2020

¶34

constructed contrary to the approved plan in the “Court Yard” of TVHTAUS situated in Natham Road, Egattur, Navalur (Near Toll Plaza) OMR, Chennai – 600 103, pursuant to the representation of the petitioner dated 18.09.2019.

¶35

For Petitioners : Mr.K.Ramanamoorthy for 1^st Petitioner No appearance for 2^nd petitioner For Respondents : Mr.M.S.Arasa Kumar Government Advocate for R1 Mr.K.Arun Babu for R2 and R3 Mr.Abishek Jenasenan for R4 and R6 Mr.R.Raveendran for R5 R7-Served (No appearance)

¶36

ORDER

¶37

[Order of the Court was made by HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR, J. ,]

¶38

The petitioners state that they are the rightful owners of individual

¶39

plots situated within a residential complex developed and constructed by the fourth respondent, herein referred to as the “Developer.” The fifth respondent is a Registered Association constituted under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975 (Act 27 of 1975). The said

¶40

Page Nos.3/11

¶41

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

¶42

W.P.No.17321 of 2020

¶43

Association was established with the primary objective of managing and maintaining the common areas within the residential complex, as well as collecting maintenance charges from the flat owners for the upkeep and related services.

¶44

The grievance of the petitioners is that the fourth respondent/Developer, allegedly at the behest of the fifth respondent/Association, is attempting to carry out illegal and unauthorized construction on portions of the property designated as common areas. In this regard, the petitioners submitted a representation to the second respondent, requesting appropriate action to restrain the Developer from proceeding with the unauthorized construction on the common property. However, the inaction on the part of the second respondent in considering or acting upon the said representation has compelled the petitioners to approach this Hon’ble Court by filing the present writ petition, seeking necessary relief.

¶45

3.Heard Mr.K.Ramanamoorthy, learned counsel for first petitioner, Mr.M.S.Arasa Kumar, learned Government Advocate for Respondent No.1, Mr.K.Arun Babu, learned counsel for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3, Mr.Abishek Jenasenan, learned counsel for Respondent Nos.4 and 6 and

¶46

Page Nos.4/11

¶47

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

¶48

W.P.No.17321 of 2020

¶49

Mr.R.Raveendran, learned counsel Respondent No.5. There is no representation for the second petitioner.

¶50

The learned counsel for the writ petitioners submits that the construction being carried out on the common area is ex facie illegal. It is asserted that the impugned construction is in clear violation of the sanctioned plan approved by the competent planning authority and is also contrary to the express provisions of the Tamil Nadu Combined Development and Building Rules, 2019. The petitioners further contend that no construction can be permitted on common areas, irrespective of any alleged majority consent, as such areas are meant for the collective use and enjoyment of all flat owners and cannot be altered or encroached upon in a manner detrimental to their rights.

¶51

In rebuttal, the learned counsel appearing for Respondents Nos. 4 and 6 contends that the construction sought to be carried out on the common area is being undertaken with the consent of the majority of the flat owners. It is further submitted that the said construction is neither in contravention of the sanctioned building plan nor does it violate any of the provisions contained in the Tamil Nadu Combined Development and Building Rules,

¶52

Page Nos.5/11

¶53

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

¶54

W.P.No.17321 of 2020

¶55

According to the respondents, the construction is lawful, duly supported by majority approval, and compliant with all statutory and regulatory norms governing development activities.

¶56

This Court is of the considered view that the question as to whether the construction allegedly carried out / put up in the common area is in consonance with the sanctioned building plan and in compliance with the Tamil Nadu Combined Development and Building Rules, 2019, is a matter that falls within the domain of the first respondent, who is the competent authority to examine such issues under the applicable statutory framework.

¶57

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the rival contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the respective parties, this Court deems it appropriate to issue the following directions:

¶58

i) The first respondent is hereby directed to consider and dispose of the representation dated 17.09.2019 submitted by the writ petitioners, strictly in accordance with law, more particularly bearing in mind the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Combined Development and Building Rules, 2019, and any other relevant statutory enactments or regulations applicable to the subject matter;

¶59

ii) The first respondent shall ensure that all necessary stakeholders, including the writ petitioners, the fourth and sixth respondents, and the fifth

¶60

Page Nos.6/11

¶61

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

¶62

W.P.No.17321 of 2020

¶63

respondent/Association, are duly notified and afforded a reasonable opportunity to submit their responses and supporting documents, if any, before arriving at a final decision;

¶64

iii) The entire exercise shall be concluded within a period of sixteen (16) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, i.e., on or before 13.09.2025.

¶65

Page Nos.7/11

¶66

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

¶67

W.P.No.17321 of 2020

¶68