IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated :10.3.2011 Coram The Honourable Mr.Justice R. SUDHAKAR WRIT PETITION No.5783 of 2011 1.G.Geetha, 2.B.Leeladhar, 3.T.Mangayarkarasi, 4.K.Sivananthakrishnan, 5.K.Anuradha, 6.S.Satyamurthi, 7.G.Balasubramanian, 8.Sundaravathanam, represented by Power of Attorney, K.Balachandar, having office at No.27, Saravana Street, T.Nagar, Chennai-17. (3 to 7 petitioners are represented by power of attorney T.Udayakumar, Sole Proprietor, Landmark Construction, having office at No.27, Saravana Street, T.Nagar, Chennai-17). ... Petitioners Vs. 1.The Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority, No.1 Gandhi Irwin Road, Egmore, Chennai.8. 2.The Corporation of Chennai, rep. By its Commissioner, Rippon Building, Chennai.3. 3. The Tamil Nadu Housing Board, rep. By its Managing Director, Nandanam, Chennai.35. .. Respondents https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1st and 2nd respondents to entertain, consider and grant approval to the demolition plan, planning permission, building permit for developing the lands at Block No.82, Dr.P.T.Rajan Salai, T.S.No.29, K.K.Nagar, Kodambakkam Village, Mambalam-Guindy Taluk, Chennai admeasuring about 3 grounds and 0175 square feet for putting up a multistoried residential building without insisting upon the N.O.C. from the 3rd respondent herein or any other authority so long as the proposed new construction activities is in accordance with the Development Control Rules. For Petitioner : Mr. S.Ramesh For Respondents : Mr.C.Kathiravan, for R1. Mr.V.Bharathidasan, for R2. Mr.A.Vijayakumar, for R3. O R D E R Writ Petition is filed praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 1st and 2nd respondents to entertain, consider and grant approval to the demolition plan, planning permission, building permit for developing the lands at Block No.82, Dr.P.T.Rajan Salai, T.S.No.29, K.K.Nagar, Kodambakkam Village, Mambalam-Guindy Taluk, Chennai admeasuring about 3 grounds and 0175 square feet for putting up a multistoried residential building without insisting upon the N.O.C. from the 3rd respondent herein or any other authority so long as the proposed new construction activities is in accordance with the Development Control Rules. 2. Petitioners claimed to be the co-owners of property in question, which was originally developed by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board sale deeds were executed in favour of the individual allottees and they have been subsequently sold to various persons and the present petitioners claimed to be the owners of the property. The petitioners intend to promote the property after demolition. In this regard, they have approached the respondents authority to consider and grant approval to the demolition plan, planning permission building permit for developing the property. The authorities are refusing to consider their claim in the absence of no objection certificate from the Tamil Nadu Housing Board. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3. Similar issues were considered by the first Bench of this Court in W.A.No.1052 of 2007, wherein it has been observed as follows:- "It is not in dispute that the construction was made more than thirty years and the flats allotted to various persons who have paid the entire sale consideration to the Tamil Nadu Housing Board and in such circumstances, when the property requires a demolition and reconstruction, it is not proper on the part of the Corporation to ask for No Objection Certificate. It is also brought to our notice that in many number of similar cases, this Court has held that such No Objection Certificate is not required. In the case of RAMAKRISHNA NAGAR FLAT ALLOTTEES / OWNERS / CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY v. TAMIL NADU HOUSING BOARD reported in (1997) TNLJ 420, the Division Bench of this Court has held that after the MIG and LIG flats are allotted to the allotees, the entire area belonged to the allotees and Housing Board has no control over the possession and management of the said area." 4. In similar cases, wherever application filed, this Court directed that the said application should be considered by the authorities only with regard to the construction of the residential property. The same direction will hold good in the present case also. 5. In view of the earlier order of this Court, the petitioners are at liberty to submit their application along with a copy of this order with all relevant documents to show the nature of the right over the property and the authorities/respondents 1 and 2 shall consider the same as and when presented without insisting a no objection certificate from the Tamil Nadu Housing Board if the applications are otherwise in order. If the applications are not accepted for one or other reason, the authority has to state the same and pass a reasoned order in accordance with law within a reasonable period of time. This writ petition is disposed of accordingly. Consequently, M.P.No.1 of 2011 is closed. No costs. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar ts https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To 1.The Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority, No.1 Gandhi Irwin Road, Egmore, Chennai.8. 2.The Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai, Rippon Building, Chennai.3. 3.The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Nandanam, Chennai.35. 1 cc To Mr.V.Bharathidasan, Advocate, SR.17513 1 cc To Mr.A.Vijayakumar, Advocate, SR.17669 1 cc To Mr.S.Ramesh, Advocate, SR.17408 W.P.No.5783 of 2011 vd(co) pmk.17.3.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/