S RADHAKRISHNAN Vs. GOVT OF T N

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These four writ petitions raise an interesting question which has a considerable impact on the present day developments of land and/or building in the City of Madras vis-a-vis. The Tamil Nadu Town and Country planning Act 1971 and the Development Control Rules. In particular the construction of flats by promoters offering attractive benefits and convenient living and attracting purchasers and allottees and later on going back on the promises and causing all kinds of inconvenience to the flat owners, is one of the aspects which is brought out in this case.

(2.) The petitioners in W.P. No. 5670 of 1988 claim to be the flat purchasers in respect of two flats, one in the ground floor and the other in the third floor of Door No. 16, Saravana Mudali Street, T. Nagar, Madras 17. Respondents 4 to 10 are the other flat owners who got themselves impleaded in these writ petitions. I do not think that it is seriously disputed that the writ petitioners are speaking for and on behalf of one R. Raju who is carrying on business under the name and style of "R.R. Construction." It is stated that the said "R.R. Construction" applied to the authorities for planning permission to construct 12 flats, four flats in each floor, (first, second and third floors), the ground-floor being left for the use of parking vehicle for the flat owners. The claim of the promoters of the flats was that as and when the 12 flats are purchased by 12 persons, the entire building shall stand vested with the flat owners in common. Each of the flat owners purchases an undivided share in the land thus giving him an indefeasible right in the block of flats and the land over which it is constructed. In this case the sale deeds were executed in or about 1982 in respect of the undivided share to the respective purchasers. The sanction for the construction of the flats seems to have been obtained in 538/80 dated 3-12-1980.

(3.) After the completion of the flats, the ground floor which was meant for Car Parking had been partly converted for certain commercial purpose and partly for two additional residential portions. For this purpose there was absolutely no sanction from the second or third respondents. The flat purchasers of the 12 flats were also prevented from going to the terrace portion of the building and have been greatly handicapped by this obstruction. It is stated that the promoter of the building has put a shed with asbestos sheet and some strangers are allowed to stay in the said terrace portion. Apparently intrigued by this action of the promoter, respondents 4 to 10 had made a complaint to the second respondent, on 9-3-1988. Based on the said complaint the second respondent had issued a notice on 20-4-1988 which is said to be notice under Section 56 read with Section 85 of the Act requiring demolition of the construction which had been carried out without permission of the authority under Section 49 of the Act. In the subject portion of the notice, reference is made to the additional residential ground-floor construction in the said premises. The writ petition is for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the said notice dated 20-4-1988 with regard to the construction in the ground-floor of the premises.