Case law, Tamil Nadu land law
Appeal No. 41 of 2022 in Complaint No. 85 of 2020
The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal, covering Tamil Nadu, Puducherry, Andaman and Nicobar Islands, issued its decision in Appeal No. 41 of 2022 on 21 August 2023 concerning the Santorini project. It directed respondents 1 to 4 to complete the first and second floors of the existing club house, provide the required solar power unit, and provide the amenities promised in the Construction Agreement or brochure within the project land, all within nine months from the date of the decision.
What the appeal concerned
Appeal No. 41 of 2022 was filed by P. Venkat Rayudu against an order of the Tamil Nadu Real Estate Regulatory Authority in Complaint No. 85 of 2020. The complaint sought project registration, vehicle parking, completion certificates for six blocks, construction of the club house, and common amenities promised in the Construction Agreement or brochure.
The appellant also asked the Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal to treat Santorini as a single project under the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority planning permit and to quash a revised planning permit dated 11 February 2021.
Decision affecting the Santorini project
The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal found that the promoter had agreed to provide the amenities within the project land. It held that common Open Space Reservation land owned by a public authority could not be treated as land exclusively belonging to the project allottees.
The tribunal therefore directed respondents 1 to 4 to complete the following within nine months from 21 August 2023:
- Construct the first and second floors of the existing club house building.
- Provide the solar power unit referred to in the Environmental Clearance letter.
- Provide all amenities listed in the Construction Agreement or brochure within the project land.
The appeal was disposed of, and any connected miscellaneous applications were closed.
Promoter's undertaking
The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal accepted and recorded the affidavit of undertaking dated 18 August 2023 filed by Sanjay Dutt, Director of Tata Value Homes Limited. The affidavit forms part of the tribunal's decision.
The undertaking stated that the promoter would:
- Apply for renewal or modification of the planning permit.
- Complete the club house as part of Phase II after receiving approval from the relevant authority.
- Comply with the Environmental Clearance condition for solar energy used for common areas, gardens and street lighting while completing Phase II.
The affidavit also stated that solar water heating had already been provided where feasible and that separate waste bins had been provided in every block.
Who may be affected
Appeal No. 41 of 2022 directly concerns the Santorini project, its promoter, the named respondents, the appellant and the Santorini Apartment Owners Association. Buyers and owners in the project may rely on the directions concerning the location and completion of promised amenities, the club house and the solar power unit.
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
Must the promised Santorini amenities be provided inside the project land?
Yes. The Tamil Nadu Real Estate Appellate Tribunal directed respondents 1 to 4 to provide all amenities listed in the Construction Agreement or brochure within the project land.
What deadline did the tribunal give for completing the work?
The club house construction, solar power unit and promised amenities were directed to be completed within nine months from 21 August 2023.
What club house work was ordered?
Respondents 1 to 4 were directed to complete construction of the first and second floors of the existing club house building.
Did the tribunal treat amenities on Open Space Reservation land as sufficient?
No. The tribunal found that the promoter had agreed to provide amenities within the project and that common Open Space Reservation land owned by a public authority was not the exclusive land of the project allottees.
