Case law, Tamil Nadu land law
Common Order in Appeal Nos. 38 and 63 of 2020
The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (Tamil Nadu, Puducherry, Andaman and Nicobar Islands), in the Common Order in Appeal Nos. 38 and 63 of 2020 dated 11 January 2021, considers cross appeals by villa buyer Anjali Iyer and promoter Ananya Shelters Private Limited against the Regulatory Authority's decision in Complaint No. 214 of 2019. The dispute concerns whether amenities of Ananya's Nana Nani Homes Phase III could be marketed or used for later annexe projects, and whether the promoter could alter the original project's compound wall.
What the case concerns
The Common Order in Appeal Nos. 38 and 63 of 2020 dated 11 January 2021 was issued by the Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal (Tamil Nadu, Puducherry, Andaman and Nicobar Islands) under the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act 2016. It concerns Ananya's Nana Nani Homes Phase III at Thaliyur, Coimbatore, and the later Phase III Annexe I and Phase III Annexe II projects developed by Ananya Shelters Private Limited.
Anjali Iyer, who purchased and took possession of a villa in the original project, complained that the promoter intended to share the original project's amenities with buyers in the annexe projects. She also objected to demolition of part of the original project's southern compound wall.
Regulatory Authority decision under appeal
The Regulatory Authority recorded an undertaking from Ananya Shelters Private Limited and directed that the promoter:
- Must not market or use the common amenities and facilities of Ananya's Nana Nani Homes Phase III with any other real estate project.
- In particular, must not market or use those amenities with Phase III Annexe I or Phase III Annexe II.
- Must obtain plan approval for common amenities in Annexe II.
The Regulatory Authority treated the compound wall as a common protection facility of the original project, which had been completed before the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act 2016 came into force. It left the complainant free to seek an appropriate civil remedy concerning the wall.
Who appealed and why
Anjali Iyer filed Appeal No. 38 of 2020. She argued that marketing the original project's amenities to annexe buyers violated the Act and that other original project owners could not consent to destroying or creating third party interests in jointly held amenities.
Ananya Shelters Private Limited filed Appeal No. 63 of 2020 against the same Regulatory Authority decision. Owners who had been added to the original complaint were listed as respondents in both appeals.
Relevance to property owners
The dispute is relevant to buyers and owners where a promoter proposes to connect a completed development with later projects or allow later buyers to use existing amenities. The supplied text records the complaint, the Regulatory Authority's restrictions and the arguments in appeal, but it does not include the Tribunal's final operative directions.
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
Could Ananya Shelters Private Limited market the original project's amenities to buyers in the annexe projects?
The Regulatory Authority directed the promoter not to market or use the common amenities and facilities of Ananya's Nana Nani Homes Phase III with any other project, specifically including Phase III Annexe I and Phase III Annexe II.
What did the Regulatory Authority require for amenities in Annexe II?
The Regulatory Authority directed Ananya Shelters Private Limited to obtain plan approval for common amenities in Annexe II.
Did the Regulatory Authority decide the compound wall dispute?
No. It treated the wall as a common protection facility of the completed Phase III project and allowed the complainant to seek an appropriate civil remedy.
Does the supplied text show how the Tribunal finally decided both appeals?
No. The supplied text sets out the background, the Regulatory Authority's decision and part of the appeal arguments, but does not contain the Tribunal's final operative directions.
