AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Kanakaraj, J.—The petitioner in both the cases is the same being a registered Society to look after the interests of the flat owners under the
Tamil Nadu Housing Board Schemes in Besant Nagar, Madras-90. The South Madras Neighbourhood Scheme was approved by the Director of
Town Planning, vide plan No. LP.H./D.T.P. 32/71. According to the petitioner, the total area of the Scheme is about 26,000 sq. metres. It is not
disputed that under the scheme, five places were set apart for the construction of garages. Applications were called for allotment of flats both in the
Middle Income and Lower income Groups. There is an allegation in the affidavit of the petitioner that an extent of 1,195 sq. metres was prudently
left open by the Housing Board by way of ""lung space"" for the colony. This allegation is denied in the counter affidavit of the Housing Board. The
Middle income and Lower Income blocks were completed and on the basis of applications, they were allotted to various persons. It is the case of
the petitioner that only the two places earmarked for construction of garages were utilised for the said purpose, whereas three other place set apart
for the construction of garages were not utilised. According to the petitioner, the plan on the basis of which applications were called for did show
the places set apart for garages. It is stated that the allottees made applications for the flats only on the basis of the said plan and in the hope of
getting allotment of garages. To be more specific, the construction of garages at the places earmarked for the same, was part of the offer and the
allottees paid the price for flats on the said promise to construct garages. To substantiate the contention that there was demand for garages, the
petitioner relied on the letter dt. 18-1-1971 written by the Executive Engineer of the Housing Board asking the society to inform the Board as to
how many members were willing to take a garage on Hire Purchase System. In response to this letter the society wrote on 10-2-1971 enclosing
the request letters of 9 members with 9 cheques for the sum of Rs. 1,000 each Three more applications were also forwarded on 22-11-1975. It is
not disputed that some of the applicants did get allotment of garages. It is stated that some other allottees who had also applied for garage; were
denied the allotment of garages The names of the persons who sought for allotment of garages have not been disclosed in the affidavit filed in
support of the writ petition- It is stated that one member of society sent a petition on 16-11-1983 that a small piece of land earmarked to her for
construction of a house. The Government in its letter dated 5-11-1984 had stated that the site had been reserved for the construction of garages
and rejected the request of the member. The grievance of the petitioner is that the Housing Board has now changed its earlier decision and has
proposed to allot the space earmarked for garages to certain persons for construction of residential house.
The second part of the grievance of the petitioner is that an extent of 1,195 sq. metres was left as a vacant space in the layout and the same was
being used as a playground by the children. This vacant space lies in the lower income group blocks. The Housing Board is now planning to
construct a multi-storeyed building in the said open space. Thereupon, the petitioner sent a complaint on 3-3-84 setting out the reasons for
retaining the said 1195 sq. metres as open space. It was pointed out that without such an open space, the Housing Board will be violating the
Development Control Rules. Thereafter, the petitioner had been making several representations and none of them proving effective or fruitful. Writ
Petition. W.P. No. 1424 of 1987 has been filed seeking a writ of mandamus to forbear the respondents from changing the purpose of the area set
apart for garages and the area kept as open space and allotting them, as house sites or by building blocks for allotment as flats.
The petitioner subsequently came to know that in and by Government order, G.O. Ms. No. 1830, Housing and Urban Development
Department, dated 12-12-1986, the area earmarked for construction of garages was converted into four house sites and the Government was
allotting them to four different persons subject to the approval of the Madras Metropolitan Development Authority for conversion and
reclassification. Thereafter, the petitioner has impleaded the said four allottees in and by an order dated 18-12-1987 in W.M.P. No. 13154 of
1987. The petitioner has also filed Writ Petition, W.P. No. 7908 of 1988 for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the said Government Order,
G.O. Ms. No. 1830, Housing and Urban Development Department, dated 12-12-1986. By an order dated 17-2-1989, the petitioner came
forward with a plea that the petitioner-society were not pressing the writ petitions against the 7th respondent. (Since deleted). (Accordingly, by an
order dated 17-2-1989, Venkataswami, J. dismissed the writ petitions as against the 7th respondent. (Since deleted).
On behalf of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board (respondents 1 and 3), a counter affidavit has been filed stating that the South Madras
Neighbourhood Scheme was approved by the Director of Town Planning in L.P.H./D.T.P. 32/71. It is admitted that at the time of the preparation
of the scheme, the Housing Board has proposed to construct 50 garages at 15 places. After the construction of garages at two places, it was
found that there was no adequate demand for the allotment of garages. It is stated that the garages were being kept idle and it is under these
circumstances that the Housing Board recommended to the Government to convert the vacant space set apart for garages as house sites. It is on
the basis of this recommendation that Government Order, G.O. Ms. No. 1830, dated 12-12-1986 was issued. It is also stated that the sub-
division was approved by the Madras Metropolitan Development Authority by an order dated 25-3-1987. It is categorically stated that the
Housing Board did not recover any amount from the allottees from the land lying in between the blocks and the lands adjacent to the blocks. The
allegation that an extent of 1,195 sq. metres was kept vacant as ""lung-space"" in the Lower Income Group blocks is denied. It is stated that the
vacant space was meant for the construction of blocks L-11, L-12, L-21 and L-22. Since the said space was in the centre of the scheme, the
construction of that block was taken up last and till then it was being used for storing building materials. Even in the original lay-out, this space had
been set apart for the construction of a block consisting of flats. The fact that so long as the land was kept vacant, children were using it as a
playground, will not give any right to the allottees or to the petitioner-society. The Corporation of Madras has also given a ""No Objection
Certificate"" for the construction of the blocks as originally planned. The M.M.D.A. has also approved the construction by letter dated 4-11-1986.
It is also stated that in the South Madras Neighbourhood Scheme, more than 10% of the lands have been left out as open space in accordance
with the Town and Country Planning Rules and the lay out was approved by the Director of Town Planning only after being satisfied about the
compliance of the rules.
Among the allottees under GO. Ms. No. 1830, Housing and Urban Development, Department dated 12-12-1986, the 5th respondent has filed
a detailed counter affidavit. It is stated that the 5th respondent-It has almost completed the construction of the residential building in the plot
allotted to her. It is also pointed out that one T. Prabakar filed a writ petition W.P. No. 13530 of 1988, T. Prabakar v. The Chairman Tamil Nadu
Housing Board, Nandattuhi Madras-35, and 3 others questioning the very allotment in favour of the fifth respondent and Baktha-vatsalam, J. by
order dated 20-12-1988 dismissed the writ petition. In other respects, the 5th respondent had adopted the stand of the Housing Board and
submitted that the petitioner-society has not made out a case for the reliefs sought for in the writ petitions.
Dr. K.P. Krishna Shetty, learned counsel for the petitioner, has urged before me the following contentions:
(1) Respondents 1 to 3 are estopped from converting the space earmarked for garages and the open space by the principle of promissory
estoppel. It is stated that respondents 1 to 3 are bound to make good the promise of construction of garages and to keep the open space ""lung-
space"" for the area.
(2) The conversion of the space kept for garages and the open space into house sites and blocks for provision of flats is arbitrary and illegal.
(3) The conversion of the open space will offend R. 19(a) (iii) and 19(b) (iv) of the Development Control Rules.
(4) The conversion as alleged will also cause pollution to the acquitter region of the entire colony and deprive the flat owners of wholesome
drinking water. It is also contended that the ecological balance will be upset if the open spaces are convicted into buildings.
The first two contentions can he taken together because they are interdependent. I asked the learned counsel for the petitioner as to when and
where respondents 1 to 3 had held out a promise that all the allottees will be provided garages, and alternatively, was there any promise that the
allotment was on the basis of the construction of garages at all the five places earmarked for such construction. I therefore called for the original
advertisement calling for applications. I find that the advertisement was made on 14-10-1969. The main advertisement calling for applications does
not speak about the garage. It only invites applications for allotment of two bed room flat and one bed room flats to eligible applicants. There is
also a prospectus and application form prescribed the Housing Broad in respect of the Middle Income Group Housing Scheme. Cl. 12(c) of the
prospectus is as follows:
12(c). It is also proposed to construct few garages at a provisional cost of Rs.... each Applicants who are desirous of owning a garage must
specify their in the prescribed application form for the allotment of a flat and should also deposit the full cost of the garage in one-lump-sum within
fifteen days from the date of receipt of the demand.
The Board does not guarantee the allotment of a garage to every applicant. The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Housing Board reserves the right to reject
any application for a garage without assigning any reason.
N.B....The deposit towards the garage is exclusive of the deposits payable under R. 12(a) above, and will not carry any interest. The portion paid
towards interest charges shall not he refundable to the allottee under any circumstances, nor shall such amount the credited towards be costs of the
flat or any other amount payable under the conditions of allotment.
Apart from this advertisement and the prospectus, the only document that is relied on by the petitioner, is the plan wherein certain areas arc
earmarked for construction of garages. There is a significant difference between the plan approved by the Director of Town Planning and the plan
that is relied on by the petitioner. The plan that is relied on by the petitioner is apparently the plan of the Housing Board relating to the Scheme,
which the Housing Board can, at any time, modify according to the needs of the people. It is not the case of the petitioner that the plan as
approved by the Director of Town Planning in L.P.H./D.T.P. 32/71 shows that certain places had been earmarked for the construction of garages.
Therefore, it cannot be argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is anything illegal about the Housing Board changing its own
scheme plan by altering its original proposal to build up garages and instead allot the same as house-sites. When there is also a reason given in the
Government Order that the expected demand was not forthcoming for the allotment of garages, I cannot reject this ground as without substance.
Turning now to the question of promissory estoppels, I am of the opinion that the petitioner-society has not made out the relevant basis for building
up a case of promissory estoppel. As I have already pointed out, there is absolutely no promise on the part of respondents 1 to 3 and the allottees
that they will be provided with the garages or that the space set apart for garages will be constructed and a chance given to the allottees to
compete for the same. The scheme of the Housing Board is a compendious scheme based on several constructions including the needs of the
public. If therefore, the Housing Board and the Government thought that it would be in the interests of the public to convert the space earmarked
for garages as house sites, it cannot be characterised as illegal and arbitrary. Therefore, the first two contentions fail. The learned counsel for the
petitioner has relied on the following Judgments for the proposition that when the Government or a Statutory Body sets up the standard, they are
bound to follow the standards and any failure to keep up to the said standards should be declared illegal: R. Manjunath Vs. The Indian Institute of
Technology, Madras and Others, . Surya Narain Yadav and others v. Bihar State Electricity Board and others AIR 1985 SC 944. and Ramana
Dayaram Shetty Vs. International Airport Authority of India and Others, . In this case. I have already pointed out that there was no promise as
alleged by the petitioner nor did respondents 1 to 3 set up their standards on the basis of which the allotments were made. There being no factual
basis, the application of law as enunciated in the said authorities does not arise.
Learned counsel for the petitioner-Society then argues that the Development Control Rules 19 (a) (iii) and 19 (b) (iv) demand the authority
laying out an area for construction of houses to reserve 10 per cent of the land for communal and recreational purposes. What is more, in the entire
layout, 10 per cent of the lands should be left out for communal and recreational purposes. The petitioner-society has not been able to show that in
the South Madras Neighbourhood Scheme as approved by the Director of Town Planning in L.P.H./D.T.P. 32/71, respondents 1 to 3 had not left
10 per cent of the total lands for communal and recreational purposes. On the other hand, the Tamil Nadu Housing Board in their counter affidavit
have clearly stated that more than 10 per cent of the lands was left out in this scheme as open space in accordance with the said rules. The
petitioner cannot seek to apply the said rules on the basis of each block of buildings and contend that 10 per cent of the lands should be left as
open space. The Development Control Rules applied to a layout as such. There fore, in the layout plan, if the authorities are satisfied that 10 per
cent has been left out for communal and recreational purposes, there can be no complaint against the construction of buildings within such limits.
The last contention is that the construction of more and more houses and flats will reduce the ground water available in the area. In this
connection, it is stated that the entire Besant Nagar depend upon ground water for the purpose of drinking. Therefore, it is submitted that the
construction of more flats will exhaust the ground water and permit the adjacent sea water to seep through and pollute the wells in the houses and
the bore-wells from which drinking water is supplied to the entire area. In this connection, learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the judgment
of Baktha vatsalam, J in W.P. No. 5678 of 1989 dated 20-4-1990. In that case, a large area in Besant Nagar was transferred to the Central
Public Works Department, where the latter was proposing to build up big office complex. Almost identical grounds were raised before the learned
Judge with regard to the ecological imbalance caused by the construction of such an office complex. Though the learned Judge allowed the writ
petition and stopped the construction of the office complex, the learned Judge had permitted a fresh notification after a fresh looking into the
matter. However, on appeal, a Division Bench of this Court has permitted the construction to go on even though the writ appeal is kept pending. It
is common knowledge that the said office complex is fast coming up in Besant Nagar. In the case before me, it cannot be said that there is such a
huge construction as in the case of the Central Public Works Department Office Complex with a floor space of 1,50,000 sq. feet. Therefore, the
construction of four Lower Income Group blocks and four residential houses cannot be said to cause pollution or exhaustion of the ground water in
the area. Above all, these are all matters which have to be considered by the appropriate authorities like the Pollution Control Board, the Madras
Metropolitan Development Authority, the Corporation of Madras and the Public Health Authorities. One has to always maintain a balance
between the plea to maintain ecology on the one hand and on the other hand the plea to improve residential accommodation in the City. I am not
inclined to accept this contention of the petitioner as well. For all the above reasons, the writ petitions fail and they are dismissed. There will be no
order as to costs.