Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Aggregate Total area LESS (i) M.I.G. Flats : 30,360 sq.ft

(ii) L.I.G Flats : 5,100 sq.ft

(iii) Office : 3,325 sq.ft

(iv) Garage : 18,217 sq.ft _______________ 23 gr. 1,802 sq.ft 57,022 sq.ft (or 23 grounds, 1,802 sq.ft) Balance being open ground-49 grounds 1373 sq.ft Area allotted to each flat M.J.G. Flat Total area for 6 flats 30,360/10 3,036 sq.ft Area for each flat 506 sq.ft Common land for each flat 1,525 sq.ft _______________ 2,031 sq.ft.

                                       _______________
Open ground area of 40 grounds,            1373 sq.ft.,
78-1,525 sq.ft.
L.I.G. Flats
Total area for 6 flats                  : 1,700 sq.ft.
Area for eath flat                      :   284 sq ft.
Common land for each flat                 1,825 sq.ft.

Final cost of and has been determined by the Board in its resolution No. 636 dated 28.12.73 at Rs. 7,700 per ground. The final cost of land for each L.I.G Flat works out to Rs. 54204 for 1,600 square feet as per T.N.H.B. letter dated B.II (2) 18127 s/54 dated 21.2.1975.

2. In the said area, 78 flats were constructed of which 60 were M.I.G. flats and 18 were L.I.G. Flats, and besides these flats, garages were constructed and the Housing Board had its office building measuring about 3,325 sq.ft. According to the appellant, the entire area is treated as a single and separate unit and block and is enclosed by compound wall on all four sides. The respondent board while calculating, fixing, arriving and determining the price for each flat took into account and consideration not only built up area but also the entire open space of ground wherein there was no construction or buildings and also the compound wall which was put up at the request of society but cost recovered from allottees with the result that the entire area encompassed and surrounded by the compound walls belonged to the allottees/owners of these 78 flats. The first respondent board entered into a lease-cum-sale agreement with each of the allottees in respect of each of the 78 flats and have put them in possession and the allottees are admittedly in occupation and enjoyment of the same even today. Initially the board had retained possession of the office building measuring about 3,325 square feet as caretakers office. Most of the allottees have paid the entire amount and have obtained sale deeds also. The allottees formed themselves into a society and got it registered under the Madras Cooperative Societies Act with the idea of maintaining and managing the flats and for the welfare of the allottees. After the formation of the said Society the writ petitioner society were insisting on the handing over the office building also restrained by the 1st respondent herein as their caretakers office, so that they could have full, complete and absolute control of the entire area for the proper and effective management and control of the entire area and ultimately succeeded in getting possession of the said building. The records produced before us would show that the writ petitioner society took possession of the entire area on 20.10.1975. According to the appellant, the first respondent ceased to have control and management with effect from 1.12.1975 onwards. In fact, it is seen from the letter dated 26.11.1975, that the first respondent board directed its allottees viz., the writ petitioner herein is in full, absolute, complete and effective possession, control and management of the entire area unenclosed and encompassed by compound walls on all the sides and the entire area within and surrounded by the compound walls belong exclusively and jointly to the 78 flats owners who are all the members of the society and the 1st respondent had not retained any part or portion of it to itself. Therefore, the first respondent had no legal right to interfere with the control, possession and management of the said area and all that it would be entitled to, would be for the balance of consideration from the allottees who have not so far obtained final sale deeds in their favour. Apart from this, the first respondent board has no right to interfere with the writ petitioner's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the area. Further, the first respondent board has also by its letter dated 6.2.1976 intimated to the Madras Electricity System that the maintenance has been handed over to the society from 1.12.1975 onwards and that further Consumption from January, 1976 onwards may be sent to the society directly thereby, accepting, acknowledging and recognising writ petitioner's management and control of the entire area.

7. The writ petition was dismissed on 1.7.1994 by Gulab C. Gupta, J., on the ground that no sale deed has been placed on record from which it could be inferred that not only the constructed area but also the open area has been sold to any of the fiat owners and as long as the petitioner-society members do not become the owner of open land within the colony, they would have no legal right to object to the allotment of the same by the 1st respondent. It was also held that in the considered opinion of the court the first respondent is under legal obligation not to reduce the existing conveniences available to the flat owners, and allotting the area for the purpose of installing an automatic milk vending machine within the area will provide facility of obtaining milk at the door-steps and at a reasonable cost. Therefore, the learned Judge was of the view that there is no justification on facts to object to the putting up of milk vending machine. Learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition by concluding that the appellant society members do not have property right over the available vacant land within the colony. Therefore, in the opinion of the court, the appellant is disentitled from claiming any right in the matter. The learned single Judge in the concluding portion of his order has also held that the first respondent should not interfere with the conveniences and available open area to the detriment of the interest of the occupants of the flats in the colony.