N. Narasimman and Others vs Director of Town and Country Planning and Others

P.R. Shivakumar, J.—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.

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.

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.

The 7th respondent is the promoter, who has entered into a joint venture agreement with respondents 5 and 6 for construction of the

apartments. It is an admitted fact that all the four house sites, which had been fused together to make it a larger site were contiguous plots and no

part earmarked for open space, street, road or other public purposes, had been encompassed in the area, in which the appellants were sought to

be constructed. The contention of the petitioners is that, once a land is sold as house sites, it cannot be later on sub-divided or fused with the

adjacent sites and made into a larger site for better utility and development, even if the planning rules permit the same, cannot be sustained. The

objections raised by the petitioners had been considered by the authorities. They found the proposed development to be in accordance with the

development rules and hence they accorded sanction for the plan. Furthermore, it is admitted that now the entire construction has been over and

the flats have been sold out to various aspirants of owning a flat in the said apartment. That being so, this Court is of the considered view that the

grant of the relief sought for in this petition at this point of time, shall adversely affect the interest of the flat owners, who had purchased the flats

from the respondents 5 to 7 in the apartment constructed by them in accordance with the planning permission. Therefore, this Court comes to the

conclusion that this writ petition deserves to be dismissed.

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. However, it is made clear that this

Court does not express any opinion as to whether there is any violation of the planning permit or not?