COOPERATIVE NAGAR RESIDENTS WELFARE ASSOCIATION Vs. DIRECTOR OF TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ANNA SALAI CHENNAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, a Residents Welfare Association, has filed this writ petition seeking a writ of certiorari calling for the records on the file of the first respondent in his proceedings in Na. Ka. No. 4172/2006-GR dated 26. 04. 2006 and also the proceedings of the second respondent in na. Ka. No. 3701/05/r3 dated 03. 02. 2006 and quash the same.

(2.) THE petitioner's case in short, as culled out from its affidavit, is as under: 2. 1. THE first respondent, vide his proceedings dated 04. 08. 1997, granted permission to the second respondent to form a layout at Thandalam Village , Tiruvarur District. 2. 2. Under clause 16 of the said proceedings, the second respondent was required to set apart open space in the layout for the purpose of park, children's playground, library, community hall and school and hand over the same to the local administration by way of a gift deed. 2. 3. Based on this permission from the first respondent, the fourth respondent formed a layout in the name and style of'cooperative nagar Housing Society" consisting of 318 housing plots, besides allotting open space as required under clause 16 of the first respondent's proceedings dated 04. 08. 1997. 2. 4. Pursuant to the fourth respondent's advertisement, the members of the petitioner association purchased housing plots considering the fact that the layout had been approved by the first respondent with necessary provision for park, community hall, etc. 2. 5. That being so, the fourth respondent, by way of newspaper advertisement dated 13. 10. 2002, called for tenders for the purchase of plots measuring 14,168 sq. ft. and 15,360 sq. ft. meant for community hall and children's school respectively. 2. 6. In response, the petitioner, by its letter dated 16. 10. 2002, requested the third and fourth respondents not to sell the plot allotted for the purpose of community hall. Yet, the fourth respondent, by its letter dated 16. 10. 2002 addressed to the petitioner, stated that the subject plot was sold to the fifth respondent, an individual, only for the purpose of construction of community hall and as such, his action was not illegal. 2. 7. Aggrieved by this reply of the fourth respondent, the petitioner, by a representation dated 19. 08. 2005, requested the third respondent not to sanction the building plan for the construction of kalyana mandapam by the fifth respondent in the plot allotted for construction of community hall. 2. 8. Putting the petitioner's effort in vain, the second respondent, by his proceedings dated 03. 02. 2006, advised the third respondent to accord sanction to the fifth respondent for the construction of kalyana mandapam, subject to certain conditions. 2. 9. In challenge to the second respondent's proceedings dated 03. 02. 2006, an appeal was preferred by the petitioner before the first respondent and the appeal was dismissed confirming the order of the second respondent. 2. 10. As against these orders of the first and second respondents, the present writ petition.

(3.) FOR her part, the fifth respondent has filed counter contending that: a. in clause 16 of the proceedings of the first respondent dated 04. 08. 1997 sanctioning to form a layout, open space allotted for construction of community hall was not at all directed to be handed over to the local administration by way of gift deed, though an extent of 14,168 sq. ft. has been allotted for construction of community hall and it was only the open space allotted for park, children's playground, fire service, police station, library, post office and roads which was directed to be handed over to the Municipality. b. the Deputy Registrar, Housing Development, Thanjavur, in his letter dated 06. 07. 1999, had recommended to the Registrar of Cooperative societies (Housing), Chennai for permission to sell six shop portions measuring an extent of 12,643 sq. ft. and to sell by public auction extents of 14,168 sq. ft. and 15,360 sq. ft. allotted for community hall and children's school respectively and accordingly, the Registrar of Cooperative Societies (Housing), chennai, vide his proceedings dated 24. 07. 1999, had permitted the fourth respondent to sell these areas at the rate of not less than Rs. 25/- sq. ft. by calling for sealed tenders with the condition that the plot should be used only for the purpose for which the open land is sold. c. pursuant to the sanction granted by the Registrar of cooperative Societies (Housing,) the fourth respondent advertised by way of tender auction sale notice in Dinamalar on 26. 09. 2002 and once again on 13. 10. 2002 and she was the highest bidder in the said tender auction sale and on payment of necessary sale price, the sale deed came to be executed in her favour in which it was specifically stated that the open space should be used only for constructing community hall and she also obtained "no Objection certificate" from the Fire Service Department and patta dated 11. 11. 2005 from the Tahsildar, Tiruvarur District; d. the second respondent, vide his proceedings dated 03. 02. 2006, had categorically communicated to the third respondent that the community hall can be built without intervention or nuisance to other occupants of the plots and also without causing pollution and with proper sewerage facilities and high-raised compound wall; e. the first respondent has rightly observed in his proceedings that only 10% of the total extent of the land will have to be reserved for open space and to be handed over to the local administration and the open space beyond 10% of the area can be sold subject to the condition that it should be used only for the purpose for which it is apportioned and as such, there is no impugnity in the proceedings of the first respondent in and by which the petitioner's appeal has been turned down; f. pursuant to the order of the first respondent dated 26. 04. 2006, she had obtained the plan duly approved by the third respondent for the purpose of construction of kalyana mandapam vide proceedings dated 22. 05. 2006 and had spent a huge sum of money for the construction of the kalyana mandapam which will be certainly of some use to 318 families in the cooperative Nagar and it can also be used for conducting functions as well as public meetings; and g. the permission granted for construction of kalyana mandapam in the open space reserved for construction of community hall is neither illegal nor unlawful as it has been granted by the competent authority only after compliance of formalities as required by the first respondent as well as the third respondent.