Mandatory allottee consent governs substantive changes to common areas, blocking replacement of promised amenities with residential towers.

A promoter cannot substitute a promised clubhouse and community facility with additional residential towers in a registered phase without the previous written consent of at least two-thirds of the allottees. The court treated the change as a substantive alteration of the sanctioned plan and common areas, falling within the statutory consent requirement. Contractual clauses allowing revision to meet legal requirements did not amount to informed consent for deleting promised amenities, and phased-project exemptions under the State Rules could not override the statutory protection. The revised approval was therefore invalid, and the original writ relief was restored.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the promoter could revise the sanctioned plan by replacing the clubhouse and community facility with additional residential towers without obtaining the written consent of two-thirds of the allottees of the relevant phase. (ii) Whether the contractual clauses and the phased-development exemptions under the State Rules permitted such alteration.

Issue (i): Whether the promoter could revise the sanctioned plan by replacing the clubhouse and community facility with additional residential towers without obtaining the written consent of two-thirds of the allottees of the relevant phase.

Analysis: Section 14(2)(ii) of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 places a mandatory bar on additions or alterations to the sanctioned plans, layout plans, specifications and common areas within a project without the previous written consent of at least two-thirds of the allottees. The common areas under Section 2(n) include community and commercial facilities. The material on record showed that the clubhouse and associated facility were part of the promised amenities for the relevant phase, and the revised approval effectively converted that facility into residential towers. Such a change was not a mere relocation of an amenity but a substantive alteration of the project structure and common facility.

Conclusion: The written consent of two-thirds of the allottees of the relevant phase was required, and the revised approval was illegal.

Issue (ii): Whether the contractual clauses and the phased-development exemptions under the State Rules permitted such alteration.

Analysis: The agreement clauses relied upon by the promoter enabled renewal or revision to meet statutory requirements, but they did not amount to informed consent for deleting a promised community facility and substituting additional towers. Rule 4 of the Tamil Nadu Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2017 does provide exemptions for phased projects in limited situations, but those exemptions cannot override the substantive mandate of Section 14 where the alteration affects the common area and the promised amenities of the registered phase. Rule 11 of the Tamil Nadu Combined Development and Building Rules, 2019 also does not dilute the obligations imposed by the Real Estate legislation.

Conclusion: Neither the contractual clauses nor the phased-development exemptions justified the impugned modification.

Final Conclusion: The revised planning approval could not stand in the absence of the statutorily required consent, and the writ appeal succeeded with the original writ relief restored.

Ratio Decidendi: Once a real estate project is disclosed and allotted on a sanctioned plan that includes common areas and community facilities, any substantive alteration of those common areas in a registered phase requires compliance with the mandatory consent requirement under Section 14(2)(ii), and contractual clauses or state-rule exemptions cannot be used to defeat that statutory protection.

---