Chennai Hiranandani Upscale Residents Welfare Association -Vs- Directorate Of Town And Country Planning & Anr

Posted On - 6 March, 2026 • By - King Stubb & Kasiva

Background and Facts

The dispute involves the House of Hiranandani Chennai Township, a large-scale residential project developed in phases. Under the original master plan, Building No. 18 was designated as a clubhouse and commercial facility for Phase II residents. Homeowners purchased their units based on these representations regarding project density, open spaces, and amenities.

In 2020, the Directorate of Town and Country Planning (DTCP) approved a revised plan allowing the developer to scrap the clubhouse at its original site and instead construct two new residential towers (Octavius and Verona). The developer intended to relocate the clubhouse elsewhere. The Residents Welfare Association challenged this, arguing that the developer could not unilaterally alter “common areas” or increase project density without the written consent of two-thirds of the allottees, as mandated by Section 14(2)(ii) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (RERA).

The developer contended that:

  • Phased development allowed for plan revisions.
  • Existing construction agreements contained clauses providing “deemed consent” for such changes.
  • The project predated RERA, and planning authorities were not responsible for enforcing RERA-specific consent.
  1. Does a promised clubhouse qualify as a “common area” under RERA?
  2. Can a developer modify a sanctioned master plan (deleting amenities or adding towers) without the statutory two-thirds consent of allottees?
  3. Do general “consent clauses” in a purchase agreement satisfy the legal requirement for “informed consent” under RERA?
  4. Does RERA override general planning regulations?

The Decision

The Madras High Court ruled in favor of the residents, declaring the 2020 revised planning approval illegal. Key findings included:

  • Definition of Common Areas: The Court affirmed that under Section 2(n) of RERA, community and commercial facilities like the clubhouse are “common areas.” Once marketed as such, they are protected from unilateral changes.
  • Mandatory Consent: Under Section 14, any alteration to the sanctioned plan or common areas requires the prior written consent of at least two-thirds of the allottees. The Court emphasized that RERA has an overriding effect; planning approvals (DTCP) cannot bypass these homeowner protections.
  • Rejection of “Deemed Consent”: The Court held that blanket or “deemed” consent clauses in pre-printed contracts are invalid for this purpose. Consent must be specific, written, and obtained at the time the alteration is proposed.
  • Outcome: The revised approval was quashed. The developer was granted liberty to reapply only if they successfully obtain the required two-thirds written consent from Phase II residents.

This judgment reinforces the principle that developers cannot unilaterally increase project density or relocate promised amenities once sales have been made based on an approved layout.