Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

6. Now, the third respondent identified as Plot L-19B. Both the Plot I-9A located in Phase I and Plot L-19B located in Phase II are advertised for outright sale. Both the plots were meant for creche and construction of over- head tank and sump as common area earmarked as per the layout of the Estate. The third respondent has no right, basis or locus, to deal with or advertise any property in the Estate. The third respondent was given right to maintain the Estate as per G.O.Ms.No.21, dated 20.07.2018. Therefore, the petitioner submitted a detailed representation seeking not to sell both the plots which were meant for other purposes and those plots were considered as common area for the use or enjoyment of the petitioner's members. The petitioner has lawful right to utilise the common facilities/infrastructure of the Estate. Therefore, the petitioner challenged both the advertisements as illegal.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.5346 & 5352 of 2021

9. While being so, the impugned advertisements were published by the third respondent to sell the area which were meant for creche and over- head tank with sump. As per the original estate plan, there was no earmarking of Plot No.I-9A in Phase I and Plot No.L-19B in Phase II of the Estate. After G.O.Ms.No.21, dated 20.07.2018, the respondent altered the layout by hand written and converted/altered the common areas as Plot No.I-9A and L-19B. Therefore, the third respondent has no power to sell the common area, which was already handed over to the purchasers, viz., members of the petitioner's Association. The Estate was handed over to the third respondent only to maintain the common infrastructure of the estate.

23. There are two categories in the industrial estate, one is conventional industrial estate and another one is functional industrial estate. The petitioner's estate is a functional industrial estate for electrical, electronics and instrument industries. Though the common area is vested with the Government in respect of maintenance of roads, drainage, sewage and other amenities, the maintenance will be with the third respondent. It also ordered in the worksheet to fix the cost of respective plots/sheds. Accordingly, the total cost will be fixed as land value, building cost and amenities. The cost of the land was valued at per cent, solatium and development charges as per the DTE. The cost of the building includes all the structures in the respective plots/sheds and common areas. The amenities was calculated by including levelling, final bores for water supply, water supply for construction, development of land by industries department, roads, construction of culvers, avenue plants, external https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.5346 & 5352 of 2021 sanitary arrangements, administrative block and quarters. The Government order in G.O.Ms.No.1131, dated 28.04.1971 was issued in respect of Phase I and G.O.Ms.No. 1045, dated 27.07.1981 was issued in respect of Phase II. After allotment/sale, the petitioner's Association was formed by its members and registered with the Registrar of Societies as Sl.No. 201 of 1996.

27. Therefore, the third respondent modified the approved plan by hand written and converted the vacant place as Plot No.L-19B in Phase II. Though the third respondent was delegated with powers to allot and sell the sheds and lands more than 50 cents on higher purchase basis, the third respondent has no power to modify or alter the approved layout by the authority concerned of the petitioner estate. Admittedly, both the plots were earmarked for other purposes. In fact, the said land cost was also included in the cost of respective plots/sheds. Common amenities also operated from the respective allottees. In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the Judgment of this Court reported in 2010 SCC Online Mad 5903 in the case of K.Rajamani and others Vs. Alamunagar Residents's Welfare Association, wherein, this Court held as follows :