Appeal No. 3 of 2018
Appeal No. 3 of 2018, dated 21 March 2019, is a proceeding of the Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal concerning the registration of the Central Government Employees Welfare Housing Organisation housing project at Kendriya Vihar II, Avadi. It reviews the Real Estate Regulatory Authority decision dated 30 July 2018 permitting project registration despite objections from the apartment owners' association, but the supplied text does not include the Tribunal's final decision on the appeal.
What the appeal concerns
Appeal No. 3 of 2018 was heard by the Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal for Tamil Nadu, Puducherry, and the Andaman and Nicobar Islands. The Kendriya Vihar II Apartment Owners' Welfare Association challenged the Real Estate Regulatory Authority decision dated 30 July 2018, which accepted the Central Government Employees Welfare Housing Organisation's application to register the project.
The dispute concerns whether later development and registration can use the entire project area, including land connected with 572 flats already conveyed to purchasers.
Apartment owners' objections
The Kendriya Vihar II Apartment Owners' Welfare Association argued that:
- The original approval covered 1,304 flats in 64 blocks as one development.
- Sale deeds executed for 572 flats in November 2011 related to 11.31 acres.
- After those sales, the Central Government Employees Welfare Housing Organisation no longer had the right to use that 11.31 acres for calculating later development rights.
- Approval based on the full 26.58 acres could reduce owners' undivided share or deprive them of benefits from increased floor space index.
- Consent was not obtained from the owners of the 572 apartments.
- Registration would allow advertising and sales that could affect existing owners' land and common area rights.
Developer's response and undertakings
The Central Government Employees Welfare Housing Organisation stated that the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority treated the site as a single development rather than separate planning phases. It argued that the proposed construction would not affect the undivided share or development rights of existing allottees.
The organisation also stated that:
- Roads, the entrance plaza, community hall, and open spaces would be common to Phase II and Phase III allottees.
- No construction would be carried out within the 11.31 acres allotted to Phase II, based on an undertaking given to the Tribunal on 25 February 2019.
- The site had 1,584 car parking spaces against a stated Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority requirement of 1,360, leaving 224 additional spaces that could be used for visitor parking.
Related High Court proceedings
The supplied text records that the High Court of Madras dismissed the remanded writ petition on 1 February 2019, holding that the proposed development did not affect the apartment owners' undivided share or floor space index area. The supplied portion does not state how the Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal ultimately disposed of Appeal No. 3 of 2018.
This summary is generated from the source document to help you find what is relevant. The PDF above is authoritative. For advice on your own property, use LandLens One or speak to a qualified professional.
Common questions
Does Appeal No. 3 of 2018 cancel the project's registration?
The supplied text does not contain the Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal's final decision. It records that the Real Estate Regulatory Authority had permitted registration and that the apartment owners' association appealed.
Can the developer build on the 11.31 acres associated with the existing 572 flats?
The Central Government Employees Welfare Housing Organisation undertook before the Tribunal on 25 February 2019 that it would not carry out construction work within those 11.31 acres.
Are the roads, community hall and open spaces exclusive to one phase?
The Central Government Employees Welfare Housing Organisation stated in an undertaking affidavit that the roads, entrance plaza, community hall and open spaces were common to Phase II and Phase III allottees, with no exclusive right for either group.
What did the High Court of Madras decide about the owners' undivided share?
The supplied text states that the High Court of Madras dismissed the writ petition on 1 February 2019 and held that the proposed development did not affect the owners' undivided share or floor space index area.
