CHITHRA LAKSHMANAN Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. K.Chandrakumar, Learned Counsel for the Petitioners, Mr. P.Balathandayutham, Learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the First Respondent, Mr. Y.Bhuvanesh Kumar, Learned Counsel for the Second Respondent, Mr. D.Veerasekaran, Learned Counsel for the Third Respondent and Mr. George Graham, Learned Counsel appearing for the Fourth Respondent and perused the materials placed on record, apart from the pleadings of the parties.

(2.) It is borne out from the materials placed on record that Tamil Nadu Housing Board had developed 642 residential flats consisting of 576 LIG, 36 MIG and 30 HIG flats in K.K.Nagar of Chennai City in an extent of 2,55,427 sq. ft. of land, which is now known as Bharathidasan Colony, and after allotment, the constructed flats with proportionate undivided share in the land has been conveyed to the respective flat owners. The Fourth Respondent, viz., Bharathidasan Colony 642 Flats Owners Welfare Association, had been formed by the said allottees of the flats in that property. It is the case of the Petitioners, who are the present owners of 54 flats in H1 to H3 Blocks and L1 to L3 Blocks, that though there was a proposal in the Association of the Fourth Respondent to demolish all the existing buildings and make re-constructions in entire property, consensus could not be arrived by all flat owners for the same. In that backdrop, the Petitioners had alone made an application for demolition of the said buildings occupied by them and re-construction in that part of the property through M/s. Ramaniyam Real Estates Private Limited, but the said proposal was returned unapproved by Order No. CE(S)/441/2020 dtd. 17/11/2020 by the Second Respondent by stating as follows:-

(3.) The remaining 588 flat owners, who are members in the Association of the Fourth Respondent, have expressed their unwillingness to grant no objection for demolition and re-construction of the buildings occupied by the Petitioners alone as according to them, they would not have the benefit of the road width for re-construction of buildings in their portions, which are situated on the rear side of the property.