CSR ESTATES FLAT OWNERS WELFARE ASSOCIATION KOTHAPET RR DIST Vs. HYDERABAD URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY SECUNDERABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, CSR Estates Flat Owners' Welfare Association, Kothapet, Ranga Reddy District, has filed this writ petition for a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction declaring the action of respondent No.) i.e., Hyderabad Urban Development Authority, in granting modification in building permission vide proceedings No.696/P4/H/94datcd2-l-1988, in favour of respondent No.3, as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law. By the impugned proceedings, the respondent No. 1 has permitted certain modifications and alterations in the original sanctioned plan dated 19-7-1991 in favour of the respondent No-3, who is a builder. This action of respondent No.l is now being challenged by the petitioners' Association.

(2.) In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition it is alleged by the petitioners' Association that it is a registered Association under the Societies Registration Act and the petitioners' association consists of all the flat owners residing in the apartments known as CSR Estates, situated at Kothapet, Ranga Reddy District. The respondent No.3 is the builder of the said apartment. It is further stated that the respondent No. 1 - Hyderabad Urban Development Authority notified certain sites for apartment housing at Saroomagar in the year 1989, inviting buildings to purchase plots of 1,200 Sq.Mts, each, in public auction for the purpose of building residential complexes in 48 plots. The said notification issued by respondent No.l further stated that the purchaser of plots will be permitted to build ground floor, plus three storeys or ground floor plus four storeys, in case they decide to leave ground floor for parking, in case the purchaser chooses the second alternative, a minimum of I/3rd of the parking area will have to be kept for open parking and it shall not be sold to any prospective purcliaser of flats. The writ affidavit further states that in pursuance of the said notification, the respondent No.3 applied for allotment of plot and he was successful in getting plot No.42, admeasuring 1,280 sq.mts. at Kothapet. He applied for permission to construct apartment complex consisting of stilt and four floors. Accordingly, this plan was sanctioned by respondent No. 1 on 19-7-1991 and according to such plan, the stilt area consists of generator room, A.C. plant, electrical cabin, watchman room, store room, office room and open parking area of flat owners, which will be a common area. The construction was started in the year 1991 and it was completed by 1993 and in all 42 flats were built. Immediately thereafter, the members of the petitioners' association purchased the flats by entering into agreements with the respondent No.3 and accordingly, the sale deeds were also executed in favour of some of the flat owners and they arc yet to be executed in case of some other flat owners. The respondent No.3 has charged Rs.20,000.00 extra for each flat owner towards open parking in the stilt. They further contended that each flat owner became the owner of undivided land approximately at 16.7 sq.mts., out of the total land. The respondent No.3 being a greedy builder did not complete the construction in time in all respects and he did not put up the compound wall. When the flat owners wanted to put up a compound wall, he went to the Civil Court and obtained an injunction against them in OS No.444 of 1997 and on the application filed by the members of the petitioners' association, the said injunction was vacated and ultimately the petitioners constructed the compound wall. The respondent No.3 thereafter planned to convert the stilt area into closed malgics, so that he could lease them out to various parties for running shops, which the petitioners were opposing. But the respondent No.3 was harassing the petitioners by filing police complaint, criminal cases etc. The respondent No.3, in order to achieve his object, has applied to respondent No.l for sanctioning closed parking in the stilt area, for conversion of four flats in the ground floor for commercial area and to construct further floor on the terrace. The respondent No.l without any notice and opportunity to the petitioners has sanctioned on 2-1-1998 such modifications sought by the respondent No.3. Immediately thereafter, the respondent No.3 filed a suit in OS No. 135 of 1998 before the Principal Junior Judge, East and North, Ranga Reddy District and obtained an exparte injunction against the members of the petitioners' Association, restraining them for interfering with the constructions he would make in the building. Under the strength of the exparte order of the Court, he hurriedly constructed closed mulgies in the stilt and also started construction of an additional floor on the terrace. He also converted four flats in the ground floor for commercial purpose as per the modified plan. Even in the area shown for electrical cabin, watchman room, store room and office room in the stilt, he built mulgies for commercial purpose.

(3.) With the above allegations, the petitioners' Association contended that the modified plan sanctioned by respondent No. 1 dated 2-1-1998 was without notice to the flat owners and the same was illegal, arbitrary and prejudicial to the interests of the flat owners. Therefore, the impugned proceedings are liable to be set aside.