Relief for flat owners, HC sets aside order allowing realtor to construct 2 new towers

CHENNAI: The principal bench of the Madras High Court (MHC) has quashed a single judge's order imposing a fine on the flat owners association and allowing Hiranandani Developers Private Limited (HDPL) to continue with constructing two new housing towers against the original plan without the consent of flat owners.

The findings of the single-judge are not completely in tune with the express provisions or the purposes of the Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA), wrote the first division bench comprising Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice D Bharatha Chakravarthy while allowing an appeal filed by the flat owners association.

The bench also quashed the approval granted by the Directorate of Town and Country Planning (DTCP) for the revision of the building plan by adding two new towers.

On July 8 last year, Justice RMT Teekaa Raman imposed a fine of Rs 1,19,500 on the flat owners association for suppressing material documents to stay the construction works. The single-judge also wrote that the impugned approval given by the secretary of the Housing and Urban Development Department and DTCP is not violative of any legal right of the flat owners.

Aggrieved by the single judge order, the flat owners association moved an appeal seeking to set aside the order. The appellant is the association of flat owners in Hiranandani Upscale, Egattur Village, Chennai.

It was contended that HDPL initially obtained plan approval from the DTCP for the development of 14 towers in two phases along with a school, and two clubhouses, one for each phase, on 128 acres.

The construction of seven towers for phase one was executed simultaneously and the individual flats were handed to the buyers in 2014, along with the clubhouse for phase one, said the appellant.

Phase two construction commenced in 2014, but unlike phase one, the construction of all towers was not taken up simultaneously, the appellant said. Though phase two is almost complete, steps were not taken for the construction of the clubhouse, they said. Meanwhile, HDPL started building two new towers namely, Octavius and Verona in the exact location in which the clubhouse for phase two was proposed as per the approved plan, without the consent of the flat owners, said the appellant.

The appellant also alleged that the Housing department approved the revised plan in violation of laws and sought to quash the approval.

After hearing both sides, the bench found that the appellant had not suppressed any material facts and wrote that it was the promoter who changed the plan considering market conditions, for financial gain. With the observations, the bench set aside the single-judge order. The bench also directed the HDPL to approach the owners of the flats for their consent to alter the clubhouse into housing towers, if two-thirds of the occupants of each of the buildings gave their consent.