2019 Supreme(SC) 1353

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R. BANUMATHI, A.S. BOPANNA, HRISHIKESH ROY, JJ.
CHENNAI METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY REPRESENTED BY ITS MEMBER SECRETARY – Appellant
VERSUS
D. RAJAN DEV AND OTHERS – Respondents
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9336 OF 2019 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.35685 of 2016)
Decided On : 11-12-2019

IMPORTANT POINT
No right accrues to an applicant until application for approval is considered and sanctioned – Date of approval is crucial date – Mere pendency of application for planning permission does not create a vested right in an applicant.

Headnote:

(A) Building Bye-laws – Construction of Residential-cum-Shopping Building – Direction to CMDA to calculate Premium FSI charges at the rate prevalent as on date of filing of application by first respondent – Forwarding of proposal to Government with recommendation for approval, does not create any right in favour of respondent – For award of Premium FSI, conditions “collection of charges at the rates as may be prescribed by the authority” and “approval of the Government”, are mandatory – Collection of FSI Premium charges is subject to guidelines – Right would accrue to first respondent only after Government grants approval to revised plan sanctioning Premium FSI – Date on which approval was granted by Government ought to have been taken into consideration for calculating Premium FSI charges – No right accrues to an applicant until application for approval is considered and sanctioned – Date of approval is crucial date – Mere pendency of application for planning permission does not create a vested right in an applicant – Right accrues only when permission/sanction is granted by Government/concerned authorities – Until and unless application complete in all respect is approved, it remains a mere application and no right can be claimed on the basis of such application – A proposal cannot be equated with an approval, otherwise later will lose all significance – Rates prevailing at the time of granting of permission are rates which an applicant has to pay – Respondent/applicant cannot claim benefit of earlier guideline value existing prior to the date when approval was granted by government – Respondent will have to pay FSI Premium charges based on guideline value as existing on the date of grant of approval – Impugned judgment passed by High Court of Madras set aside – Appellant-CMDA is at liberty to recover balance Premium FSI charges from first respondent in accordance with its regulations and rules. (Paras 26 and 27)

(B) Building Bye-laws – Construction of Residential-cum-Shopping Building – Delay in processing of application – Appellant-CMDA is a body entrusted with task of examination and approval of multitude of building applications throughout planning area – That apart, appellant-CMDA is a single window system and it has to verify various documents with connected Departments at various levels – Application was processed at various levels and it was sent to departments like police, Fire, etc. for clearance – Considering fact that different departments and agencies are involved with process of approval, there was no undue delay on part of appellant-CMDA or State Government. (Para 23)

Facts of the case:

Instant appeal arises out of impugned judgment dated 03.08.2016 passed by Division Bench of the High Court of Madras in W.A. No. 2376 of 2013 filed by the first respondent in and by which the Division Bench set aside the order of Single Judge and allowed the writ appeal thereby directing the appellant Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority (CMDA) to calculate Premium FSI charges at the rate prevalent as on the date of filing of application by first respondent. Point falling for consideration is whether the High Court was right in holding that Premium FSI charges are payable only as per pre-revised guideline value as on 04.05.2011 i.e. date of filing of application with revised plan, by first respondent?

Findings of Court:

Division Bench did not keep in view the well settled principle that no right accrued to the applicant-builder by mere filing of application for approval and the right accrues only after approval is granted by the Government/concerned authorities. The impugned judgment is contrary to the well settled principle that the applicant does not acquire any right under law till his application is considered and sanctioned.

Result : Appeal allowed.