IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated 18.4.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUDHAKAR Writ Petition No.9577 of 2011 1.K.Jayaraman, 2.R.Visweswaran, 3.R.Chandrasekaran, 4.K.Vasanthi, 5.R.Subramanian, 6.K.Murali, 7.Usha Ranganathan, 8.M.R.Sureendran, 9.P.Lakshmikumari, 10.M.R.Karthick, 11.M.R.Reema. ... Petitioners vs. 1.The Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority, No.1, Gandhi-Irwin Road, Egmore, Chennai 600 008. 2.The Corporation of Chennai, represented by its Commissioner, Rippon Buildings, Chennai-3. 3.The Tamil Nadu Housing Board, represented by its Managing Director, Nandanam, Chennai-600 035. ... Respondents Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 and 2 to entertain, consider and grant approval to the demolition plan, planning permission, building permit for developing the lands at Flats in Block No.85, P.T.Rajan Salai, S.No.29 part K.K.Nagar, Kodambakkam Village, Mambalam-Guindy Taluk, Chennai admeasuring about 2 grounds and 2396 square feet for putting up a residential building without insisting upon the No https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Objection Certificate from the third respondent or any other Authority, so long as the proposed new construction activities is in accordance with the Development Control Rules. For petitioners : 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 respondents 1 and 2 to entertain, consider and grant approval to the demolition plan, planning permission, building permit for developing the lands at Flats in Block No.85, P.T.Rajan Salai, S.No.29 part K.K.Nagar, Kodambakkam Village, Mambalam-Guindy Taluk, Chennai admeasuring about 2 grounds and 2396 square feet for putting up a residential building without insisting upon the No Objection Certificate from the third respondent or any other Authority, so long as the proposed new construction activities is in accordance with the Development Control Rules. 2. Mr.C.Kathiravan, learned counsel takes notice on behalf of the first respondent; Mr.V.Bharathidasan, learned counsel takes notice on behalf of the second respondent and Mr.A.Vijayakumar, learned counsel takes notice on behalf of the third respondent. By consent, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal. 3. Petitioners claim to be co-owners of the property originally developed by Tamil Nadu Housing Board. Sale deeds were executed in their favour. Petitioners intend to promote the property after demolition and in this regard, they approached the respondents authority to consider and grant approval to the demolition plan, planning permission, building permit or developing the property. The authorities are refusing to consider their claim in the absence of no objection certificate issued by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board. 4. 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:- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ "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." 5. 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. 6. 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. 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 600 008. 2.The Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai, Rippon Buildings, Chennai-3. 3.The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Nandanam, Chennai-600 035. 1 cc to Mr.S.Ramesh, Advocate, Sr. 27375 1 cc to Mr.V. Bharathidasan, advocate, Sr. 27191 1 cc to Mr.A. Vijayakumar, advocate, sr. 26883 1 cc to Mr.C. Kathiravan, Advocate, Sr. 26864 W.P.No.9577 of 2011 KJI (CO) kk 28/4 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/