CHENNAI FRUIT COMMISSION AGENTS ASSOCIATION Vs. MEMBER SECRETARY, CHENNAI METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in W.P. No.28520 of 2011, stated to be an association of the Fruit Commission Agents, represented through its President S. Srinivasan of Anna Fruit Market, Koyambedu and the petitioner in W.P. No.28521 of 2011, stated to be an individual allottee, have come up with the instant writ petitions, seeking a mandamus forbearing the respondent from granting any right in the form of permission, licence, allotment or sale to the retail vendors or any third parties other than the allottees of the shops constructed as per the respondent's approved Koyambedu Wholesale Fruit Market Complex Plan dated 12th December 1988 or permitting such third parties to carry on any trade in the common built up area like platforms, shopping and service streets, court yard, etc. provided within the Koyambedu Wholesale Fruit Market Complex.

(2.) The relevant facts necessary for adjudication, in brief, are that the Government of Tamil Nadu conceived a wholesale market complex at Koyambedu to shift and replace the shopkeepers in the Kothavalchavadi George Town congested area for vegetables, fruits and flower wholesale market. Indisputably, the said market was developed and constructed under self-financing scheme at the cost of the allottees. According to the petitioners, all the allottees paid the cost of godowns, open parking place for vehicles, drainage facilities, court yard and toilet facilities in the shops, separate verandahs to be held and vast common area to be under their ownership. The entire complex comprises 456 shops as per the approved plan. The fixation of the cost of the said shops was questioned by the petitioner association in Civil Suit being C.S. No.250 of 1988, wherein, it was clearly stated by the respondent that the project was conceived, planned and developed as a socio-welfare measure on no profit basis. The actual cost is paid by the allottees alone to their benefit. According to the petitioners, the complex was completed in the year 1991 and it was opened for allotment to the members of the petitioner association from 1996 onwards. Thereafter, the allottees have been carrying on their wholesale trade in the said complex. However, handing and taking over took place formally in July 2006. Ultimately, the sale deed was executed in December 2006. The allottees continued thereafter as lawful owners of the shops as specified in Schedule B and all other common built up area like platforms, shopping and service streets, court yard, etc. under common ownership. These writ petitions, as aforestated, seek a direction forbearing respondent from granting any right in the form of permission, licence, allotment or sale to the retail vendors or any third parties other than the allottees of the shops constructed.

(3.) Mr. S. Thankasivan, learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that it is evident from the counter affidavit filed by the respondent in Application No.1205 of 1988 in C.S. No.250 of 1988, as aforestated, that the entire project was constructed at the cost of the allottees under self-financing scheme. The very purpose to release congestion in George Town area by constructing this complex would stand defeated, if the platform shops are allotted to the retailers or any third parties. If such allotment is made, it would alter the approved plan and also amount to infringement of the ownership and title passed on to the allottees in common, as the entire complex was developed under self-financing scheme. In the individual sale deed executed in December 2006, it is clearly stated that on payment of the sale consideration, the allottees would become the absolute owner of the property mentioned in the B Schedule. The purchasers will have easements, rights in common and privileges mentioned in the Schedules D and E and with all the fixtures, electrical installation, water and drainage connection, rights, easements and appurtenances of the ways, paths, liberties, advantages and privileges whatsoever belonging thereto and they will have and hold the said shop and all and singular the rights, titles, interest, etc. in the property thereby conveyed, granted, transferred and assigned unto and to the use of the purchaser to be enjoyed by the purchaser for ever absolutely, free from all encumbrances and charges whatsoever, except the restrictions and undertakings given by them. Except the restrictions in respect of carrying on the wholesale trade, the allottees were granted building ownership in respect of not only the shop, but, other common areas including platform, etc., as aforestated. As such, the respondent authority is divested of power to deal with the platform shops by granting lease, permission or sale to any other third party. It is further contended that the width of service streets is admittedly 16 ft. only out of which, 3 to 4 ft. is occupied by platforms. If these platforms are allotted to third parties and the service streets are converted into shopping streets, that would lead to further congestion and defeat the basic purpose of the shifting and re-locating the present allottees from the old place.