Madras High Court
Unknown vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 10 October, 2025
Author: S.M.Subramaniam
Bench: S. M. Subramaniam, Mohammed Shaffiq
2025:MHC:2436
WA No. 129 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 10-10-2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE S. M. SUBRAMANIAM
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ
WA No. 129 of 2023
1.Chithra Lakshmanan
2.R.Vasantha
3.K.S.Ganesan
4.S.Manimegalai
5.B.Devendran
6.S.Venkatachalam
7.S.P.Nachiappan
8.K.G.Srinivasan
9.M.Lakshmi Madhavan
10.C.Rajasulochana
11.K.Vaiyananthimala
12.S.Kathyani
13.T.Murugan
14.J.K.Shanthi
15.V.Santhi
16.S.Ravichandran
17.V.V.Radha Krishnan
18.K.Ravi
19.R.Valsala
20.A.T.K.Muthumurugan
21.B.Vijayakumari
22.C.Vijayalakshmi
Page 1 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/10/2025 02:47:06 pm )
WA No. 129 of 2023
23.M.Aparana
24.Shoba Prabu
25.R.S.Muralidharan
26.UshaRani
27.S.Ramaswamy
28.A.V.Vikram
29.A.S.Mani
30.Dakahisnamoorthy
31.P.N.R.Ganesan
32.D.Selvarasu
33.Chitra Krishnakumar
34.Sudhakar
35.M.Krishnamurthy
36.M.B.Ananthakrishnan
37.K.Lalitha
38.Dr.N.Usman
39.C.J.Raj
40.Saroja Gangadharan
41.Deepa Viswanath
42.S.Muthulekshmi
43.Saarukesi Sabapathy
44.N.Krishnamurthi
45.N.S.Rajesh
46.N.C.Srinivasan
47.Jayakar J.Edmond
48.R.Parthasarathy
49.R.Sathya Narayanan
50.S.Subramanian
51.K.Chellappa
52.Poojakamachidevi Jothi
Karthikeyan
53.C.P.Shakthivel
54.V.Sivakumar
55.M.Velayudham
Appellant(s)
Page 2 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/10/2025 02:47:06 pm )
WA No. 129 of 2023
Vs
1.The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep by Secretary,
Housing and Urban Development,
Fort St.George,
Chennai-600 009.
2.The Member Secretary,
Chennai Metropolitan Development
Authority, Thalamuthu Natarajan
Building, Egmore,
Chennai-600 008.
3.The Chairman,
Tamil Nadu Housing Board,
Nandhanam,
Chennai-600035.
4.Bharathidasan Colony 642 flats
Owners Welfare Association
Rep by Secretary, Bharathidasan
Colony, KK Nagar,
Chennai-600078
5.The Inspector General of
Registration
No.100, Santhome High Road,
Chennai 600 028.
[R5 Impleaded as suo motu vide order
dated 14.07.2025 in WA.No.129/2023]
Respondent(s)
Page 3 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/10/2025 02:47:06 pm )
WA No. 129 of 2023
PRAYER
Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, to set aside the order
dated 26.10.2022 passed in WP No.18720 of 2022.
For Appellant(s): Mr.A.K.Sriram
Senior Counsel
For Mr.S.K.Chandra Kumar
For Respondent(s): Mr.P.Kumaresan, AAG
Asst. by Mr.S.Senthil Murugan
For R1
Mr.R.Sivakumar, SC
For CMDA For R2
Mr.D.Veerasekaran, SC For
TNHB For R3
Mr.N.Manikandan For R4
JUDGMENT
(Judgment was delivered by S.M.Subramaniam J.) Under assail is the writ order dated 26.10.2022 passed in W.P.No.18720 of 2022. The writ petitioners are the appellants before this Court.
2. The writ petitioners hold undivided share in respect of the property located at Bharathidasan Colony Main road, Bharathidasan Colony, Page 4 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/10/2025 02:47:06 pm ) WA No. 129 of 2023 K.K.Nagar, Chennai, bearing old S.Nos.339pt, 342pt, TS No.4/2, Block No.129 of Kodambakkam Village. The Tamil Nadu Housing Board constructed flats and sold in favour of individuals. Fact remains that the site area of the Bharathidasan Colony, K.K.Nagar, is to an extent of 5,26,477 Sq.ft., with a total plot area of 2,55,427 Sq.ft., and a plinth area of 2,53,800 Sq.ft., for 642 flats (30 HIG Flats, 36 MIG Flats and 576 LIG Flats).
rd
3. On the above basis, the 3 respondent calculated the proportionate Undivided Share of Land (UDS) in the ratio of 1.00641 per Sq.ft., of plinth area. In fact in one of the undivided share certificate dated 03.10.2018 issued rd by the 3 respondent, it was specifically stated that the extent of the Undivided Share is 382 Sq.ft, including Common Area. As the appellants hold an undivided share in the larger site/plot, which is to an extent of 5,26,477 Sq.ft., rd they are required to obtain approval from the 3 respondent for subdividing a portion of the site, by making joint application of all the owners in the undivided share in the site.
Page 5 of 12https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/10/2025 02:47:06 pm ) WA No. 129 of 2023
4. In the present case, the subdivision effected by the revenue authorities may not be directly relevant for the purpose of subdivision envisaged under the provisions of the Development Regulations and the Tamil Nadu Combined Development and Building Rules, 2019.
5. The Tamil Nadu Housing Board has provided information regarding the allotment of undivided shares in favour of 642 flat owners, purchased their respective flats from the Board. The facts are as follows:
Sl. Block Flat No of Plinth Total UDS Per Total No No. Type Flats Area per Plinth Flat UDS . Flat Area (Sq.M (Sq.M) ) 6=4x5 7=1.232x 8=4x7 1 2 3 4 5 5 1 to 11 LIG 1 30.10 37.10 Sq.m (or) Sq.m (or) 324 Sq.ft 399.34 4897. 1 132 3973.2 Sq.ft 47 12 to LIG 2 27.97 34.48 48 Sq.m (or) Sq.ft (or) 301 Sq.ft 371.14 15307 2 444 12418.68 Sq.ft .6 3 60 to MIG 36 35.30 1270.8 43.51 1566.
62 Sq.m (or) Sq.m (or) 42 380 Sq.ft 468.34 Page 6 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/10/2025 02:47:06 pm ) WA No. 129 of 2023 Sl. Block Flat No of Plinth Total UDS Per Total No No. Type Flats Area per Plinth Flat UDS . Flat Area (Sq.M (Sq.M) ) Sq.ft H1 to MIG 52.95 65.27 H5 Sq.m (or) Sq.m (or) 570 Sq.ft 702.57 1958.
4 30 1588.5 Sq.ft 03
Total 23729
642 19251.18 .53
The above undivided share of land is being issued to the allottees of 642 flats at Bharathidasan Colony, K.K.Nagar.
6. In this context, 54 Flat owners engaged a flat promoter and submitted an application seeking planning permission. The Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority (CMDA) considered the application and rejected it vide letter dated 17.12.2020, which came to be challenged in writ proceedings. The reasons stated by the CMDA is that an objection was raised by other undivided shareholders, not to grant building planning permission.
Page 7 of 12https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/10/2025 02:47:06 pm ) WA No. 129 of 2023
7. CMDA authorities found based on original layout sketch furnished by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board, an application for planning permission could not be considered unless all the flat owners jointly submit an application, separate re-development proposal by 54 flat owners, abutting Bharathidasan Colony, could not be considered, as it would deprive residents of the other blocks, existing at the rear side and near to park area, of obtaining planning permission. Since all undivided shareholders have right over the entire property, the consent of those undivided shareholders is mandatory for re-
development and to secure building plan permission.
8. In the present case, the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Apartment ownership Act, 2022 would be applicable. Section 13 of the Act provides “Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, re-development of a project may be carried out on such terms and conditions, as may be prescribed,- (a) with the consent of not less than two-thirds of the apartment owners of the project; or (b) if the appropriate authority has certified that the building is in ruinous condition, or in a such a state that it may endanger the lives of the occupants or any other person”.
Page 8 of 12https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/10/2025 02:47:06 pm ) WA No. 129 of 2023
9. Section 3(2) of the Act enumerates “An apartment, together with its undivided interest in the common areas and facilities, shall constitute a heritable and transferable immovable property within the meaning of any law for the time being in force”.
10. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that a consensus must be arrived between all undivided shareholders, as every shareholder has got a right over the entire property. For redevelopment, two-third majority is required to secure building plan permission under the Act. 54 flat owners residing in 6 blocks cannot secure a separate building plan permission, as rightly decided by CMDA.
11. The Writ Court considered the issues in a right perspective and dismissed the writ petition. It is brought to the notice of this Court that the Resident Owners Association have convened a meeting. It is for the flat owners to arrive at a consensus by securing a two-third majority, as required under Section 13 of the Tamil Nadu Apartments Ownership Act, 2022, and thereafter submit an application for the purpose of redevelopment.
Page 9 of 12https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/10/2025 02:47:06 pm ) WA No. 129 of 2023
12. Therefore, this Court does not find any infirmity in respect of the writ order impugned. Accordingly, the writ order dated 26.10.2022 passed in W.P.No.18720 of 2022 stands confirmed. Consequently, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
(S.M.SUBRAMANIAM J.)(MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ J.) 10-10-2025 Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes Neutral Citation:Yes/No Jeni Page 10 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/10/2025 02:47:06 pm ) WA No. 129 of 2023 To
1.The Secretary, Housing and Urban Development, The State of Tamil Nadu, Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009
2.The Member Secretary, Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority, Thalamuthu Natarajan Building, Egmore, Chennai-600 008
3.The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Nandhanam, Chennai-600035.
4.The Inspector General of Registration No.100, Santhome High Road, Chennai 600 028.
Page 11 of 12https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/10/2025 02:47:06 pm ) WA No. 129 of 2023 S.M.SUBRAMANIAM J.
AND MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ J.
Jeni WA No. 129 of 2023 10-10-2025 Page 12 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/10/2025 02:47:06 pm )