Section 390-A of the Madras City Municipal Corporation Act, 1919, bars the remedy of the Corporation to enforce the improvement charges if steps are not taken within three years to recover the same.

1. The prayer of the petitioner is to issue a writ, direction or order in the nature of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records relating to CE.No. 268 of 1993 issued by the third respondent to quash the demand dated: 210. 93 as modified by the further demand dated 2. 94 and direct the third respondent to issue the building permit forthwith to the petitioner’s property at No.213, St.Mary’s Road, Madras 600 028.

2. The petitioner in his affidavit filed in support of the writ petition states that he is the owner of the property at No.213, St.Mary’s Road, Madras-28 (Old No.74). He has further stated that in order to develop the vacant site and put up new building, he approached the M.M.D.A. for planning permission which was approved by their Lr.No.C2/28411/92. Thereafter the Corporation of Madras issued the building plan permit and suggested certain modifications and the same was carried out by the petitioner and the petitioner paid a sum of Rs.29,570 towards licence fee and Rs.270/-towards scrutiny fee. By letter dated 26. 93 the second respondent directed the petitioner to comply with certain requirement and the same were complied by the petitioner. Thereafter the third respondent issued a letter dated: 29. 93 demanding building fee of Rs.29,570 and scrutiny fee of Rs.270 and N.S.C. for Rs.750 and the same were paid and complied with by the petitioner. Thereafter by letter dated: 210. 93, the third respondent once again called upon the petitioner to remit tentative improvement charges of Rs.43,860 Thereafter once again the third respondent directed the petitioner to remit tentative improvement charges of Rs.52,098 by the impugned order. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner approached this court for the necessary relief.

3. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the second respondent wherein it is stated that the Corporation of Madras has incurred a total expenses to the extent of Rs.58,100 for laying the road to the entire length of 128 metres and the expenses incurred in providing street lights for the said 128 metres road has come to Rs.29,440 Thus a sum of Rs.87,540 has been incurred by the Corporation for making improvements in the said street and the Corporation is entitled to reimburse the said amount by recovering it from the owners of the buildings and the lands abutting the road in equal proportions.

4. In the additional counter affidavit it has been stated as follows:

“I submit that on 3. 88, the Commissioner passed orders to initiate action under Section 218 of Madras City Municipal Corporation Act to provide road and street light and accordingly the notice under Section 218 of the M.C. M.C.Act has been served on the owners of the land abutting the said street calling upon them to carry out the Work mentioned in the said notice i.e., laying the road and lighting the street. The notices served on the owners were acknowledged the receipt of the said notice. But, the said notice under Section 218 could not be served on the petitioner herein due to the non-availability of the petitioner in the said premises. But, the notice have been served on other owners.”

5. Mr.Sampath, the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contended that the impugned order dated: 2. 94 of the third respondent directing the petitioner to remit a sum of Rs.52,098 towards tentative improvement charges is not maintainable in law. In this connection the learned counsel referred to section 218 of the Madras City Municipal Corporation Act, 1919 (hereinafter refer to as ‘The Act’) which says that if any private street or part thereof is not levelled, paved, metalled, flagged, channelled, sewered, drained, conserved, or lighted to the satisfaction of the commissioner, He may by notice require the owners of such street or part and the owners of buildings and lands fronting or abutting on such street or part including in cases where the owners of the land and the building thereon are different, the own