Madras High Court
T.Udayakumar vs Chennai Metropolitan Development ... on 26 April, 2012
Author: R.Sudhakar
Bench: R.Sudhakar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated 26.4.2012
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUDHAKAR
Writ Petition No.12513 of 2012
1 MRS.R.CHANDRA .
2 MR.C.DURGA PRASAD .
3 MR.K.UMA MAHESHWARAN
4 MR.K.A.BALSSUBRAMANIAN
5 MRS.THANGAM RAMACHANDRAN
6 MR.A.K.RAMESH
7 MR.A.K.SURESH
8 MR.AMANJARI KARAMBIL MAHESH
9 MRS.YASMEEN LLOYD
10 MRS.G.BABY
11 MRS.S.GNANAMBAL
12 MR.P.C.KRISHNAN KUTTY
13 MR.V.G.RAMACHANDRAN
.
14 MRS.K.SAKUNTHALA
15 MRS.M.MEENAKSHI
16 MR.T.J.VIJAYVIKRAM
17 MR.G.S.NAGARAJAN
18 MR.C.MOHAN KUMAR
19 MR.K.M.SINDAH GANI
20 MR.V.KRISHNAN
21 MR.G.V.NARAYANAN
22 MR.G.MURUGESAN
23 MR.YESODA VENKATA RANGA RAO
24 MRS.B.V.NARASIMHAN
25 MRS.THILAKAVATHI SUBRAMANIAM
26 MR.D.M.SUBRAMANIAM
27 MR.R.MOHAN
28 MRS.V.K.KAMALAVALLI
29 MR.M.MURUGAPPAN
30 MR.K.V.RAMANI
31 MR.R.LAXMI NARAYANAN
32 MR.A.V.SUBBA RAO
33 MRS.RATHA APPUSWAMY
34 MR.V.T.APPUSWAMY
35 MR.C.RAMACHANDRAN
36 MR.R.LAKSHMI NARAYANAN
37 MR.R.GABRIEL GERMANS
38 MR.S.LOGANATHAN
39 MR.T.SUBRAMANIAN
40 MS.SATHYAPRIYA
41 MRS.S.POORNIMA
42 MR.T.K.SUBRAMANIAN
43 DR.ESTHER REVATHY
44 DR.S.VENKATARAMAN
45 MR.S.LALITHANAND MOSES
46 MRS.J.SHANTHAKUMARI
47 MRS.S.PAVITHRA @ PAVITHRA
JEBARAJ
48 MRS.RUKMA KUDVA
49 MR.K.Y.SRINIVASAN
50 MR.V.SESHASAYEE
51 MR.S.KARTHIKEYAN
52 MR.D.SUNDARESAN
53 MR.V.RAMASWAMY
.
54 MRS.J.KAMALA
55 MRS.GIRIJA MYTRAN
56 MR.T.S.VISWANATHAN
57 MR.L.K.NATARAJ
58 MRS.MERLIN PREMKUMAR
59 MRS.A.R.SATYANANDAMANI
60 MRS.MUTHAMMAL MANICKAVASAGAM
61 MR.K.A.JOSEPH
62 MR.NARAYANAN KARTHA
63 MRS.M.KASTHURI THILAKAM
64 MR.V.CHAKRAPANI
65 MR.P.DAVID
66 MR.L.SUBRAMANIA RAO
67 MRS.K.J.ARUMAINAYAGAM
68 MR.K.RAMASUBRAMANIYAM
69 MR.G.PADMANABHAN
70 MR.K.SIVAKUMAR
71 MR.R.SARAVANA BAVA
72 MR.M.D.SURESH KUMAR
73 MR.K.SUBRAMANIAN
74 DR.R.INDHU PRIYADHARSHINI
75 MR.P.SHAMARAYACHAR
76 MR.M.VIJAYA BABU
77 MRS.K.K.KOMALA
78 MS.SASIREKA
79 NARENDRAKUMAR ALL AT NO.138-
148 ANNA NAGAR WEST CHE-40 ALL REP. BY
THEIR POWER AGENTS
1.T.UDAYAKUMAR , 27 SARAVANA ST. CH-17.
2. KHIMRAJ SAKARIYA , 104 BARNABY RD. CH-10 ... Petitioners
vs.
1.Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority,
represented by its Member Secretary,
No.1, Gandhi-Irwin Road,
Egmore,
Chennai 600 008.
2.Corporation of Chennai,
represented by its Commissioner,
Ripon Building,
Chennai-600 003.
3.The Tamil Nadu Housing Board,
represented by its Managing Director/
Chairman, 493 Anna Salai,
Nandanam,
Chennai-600 035. ... Respondents
Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 and 2 to receive, consider, process and approve the petitioners' application for demolition and reconstruction by issuing planning permission, building permit for developing the lands at Flats in Block Nos. 138 to 148 Geethanjali colony, 7th Avenue, Anna Nagar West, Chennai.40 comprised in S.No. 185 (part) 186 (Part) and 187 (part) in Padi Village at Anna Nagar, admeasuring 70618 sq. ft. For putting up a residential building without insisting upon the No Objection Certificate from the third respondent or any other Authorities so long as the proposed new construction activities is in accordance with the Development Control Rules.
For petitioners : Mr.S. Ramesh
For respondents : Mr.Raja Srinivasan - R1
: Mr B.B. Senthilkumar - R2
: Mr.Jayaseelan - R3
-----
O R D E R
Writ Petition is filed praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 and 2 to receive, consider, process and approve the petitioners' application for demolition and reconstruction by issuing planning permission, building permit for developing the lands at Flats in Block Nos. 138 to 148 Geethanjali colony, 7th Avenue, Anna Nagar West, Chennai.40 comprised in S.No. 185 (part) 186 (Part) and 187 (part) in Padi Village at Anna Nagar, admeasuring 70618 sq. ft. For putting up a residential building without insisting upon the No Objection Certificate from the third respondent or any other Authorities so long as the proposed new construction activities is in accordance with the Development Control Rules.
2. Mr.Raja Srinivasan , learned counsel takes notice on behalf of the first respondent; Mr B.B. Senthilkumar, learned counsel takes notice on behalf of the second respondent and Mr Jayaseelan, learned counsel takes notice on behalf of the third respondent. By consent, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal.
3. Petitioners are owners of the property which was originally developed by Tamil Nadu Housing Board and sold to the individuals. The present owners are either original allottees or subsequent purchasers. The undisputed fact is that the Tamil Nadu Housing Board has no lien over the property. For the purpose of developing the property, the first respondent orally insisted the petitioners that no objection certificate issued by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board should be submitted along with the application for the purpose of demolition, planning permission and for issuance of planning and building permit to put up new construction.
4. Similar issue with regard to the insistence of no objection certificate from Tamil Nadu Housing Board was considered by a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.1052 of 2007 (The Managing Director - vs. - Lancor G:Crop Properties Limited & another) where it has been clearly held that the Housing Board has no right over property developed and sold to the individual allottees. The petitioners have enclosed sale deeds to show absolute ownership. The only restriction appears to be that the property developed for residential purpose should not be commercial use. The petitioners' plea is only for demolition and reconstruction as residential property.
5. Petitioners' counsel states that the development of the property is for residential use only and petitioners are willing to file an affidavit to that effect. Following the Division Bench Judgment as above, several orders have been passed by this Court, viz., W.P.No.15170 of 2010 dated 20.7.2010, W.P.No.14784 of 2008 dated 6.8.2008 where the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authorities were directed to accept the application without insisting on no objection certificate.
6. Since the property in question undisputedly has been sold to the individual allottees by way of proper sale deeds, the Tamil Nadu Housing Board can have no right over the property and therefore, the question of issuing no objection certificate does not arise.
7. In view of the above, the first respondent is directed to proceed with the application submitted by the petitioners without insisting no objecting certificate from the third respondent Tamil Nadu Housing Board subject to condition that the property will be developed only for residential purpose. The petitioners, however, are directed to submit the individual sale deeds of all the land owners to the competent authority to get planning permission. The Writ Petition is ordered as above. No costs.
26.4.2012
Index: Yes/ No
Internet: Yes /No
ra
To
1.The Member Secretary,
Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority,
No.1,Gandhi Irwin Road,
Egmore,
Chennai 600 008.
2.The Commissioner,
Chennai Corporation,
Rippon Building, Chennai-600 003.
3.The Managing Director/Chairman,
Tamil Nadu Housing Board,
493 Anna Salai, Nandanam,
Chennai-600 035.
R.SUDHAKAR,J.
ra
Order in
W.P.No.12513 of 2012
26.4.2012