N NARASIMMAN Vs. DIRECTOR OF TOWN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard both sides. A residential lay out was formed in the name of 'G.V. Residency' in Sowripalayam, Coimbatore. In the said lay out, land was divided into 547 house sites and sold to members of the 4th respondent Co-operative society. The petitioners are also members of the said Society and they are also the purchasers of the house sites in the said lay out. After the lay out was formed, the 5th and 6th respondents, who had purchased site Nos. 71, 72, 87 and 88, fused all the four plots into a single larger plot and applied for approval of a plan to construct 32 apartments and sought an order of exemption from the first respondent for developing the same into an apartment consisting of 32 flats.

(2.) The first respondent passed an order in Na.Ka. No. 24679/2005 PA1 dated 3.11.2005 according such permission, pursuant to which the planning permission was granted by the third respondent in his proceedings No. B.L. No. 27/06/H1 dated 14.2.2006. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have come forward with the present writ petition praying for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the order of the first respondent made in Na.Ka. No. 24679/2005 PA1 dated 3.11.2005 and the planning permission granted by the 3rd respondent in his proceedings No. B.L. No. 27/06/H1 dated 14.2.2006.

(3.) It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that since the land had been divided into house sites by laying out the same, the purchasers of the individual plots did have the expectation that no multi-storied building would be constructed in any one of the plots situated in the lay out and that the conversion of some of the plots into larger plots and development of the same into high rise apartments would detrimentally affect the interest of the petitioners. It is also the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the construction of the apartments would cause environmental hazard to which the petitioners would be put and hence they raised objections, but overruling such objections, the respondents 1 and 2 have granted permission for such development by the 5th and 6th respondents.