1. These batch of writ petitions came to be posted before this court on being specially ordered by the Hon'ble Chief Justice vide order dated 14.6.2011.

2. The petitioners in all these writ petitions are either Promoters, Realtors, property developers, public limited companies or charitable educational trust. Most of the writ petitions challenges the constitutional validity of Sections 63B and 63C of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 (for short TCP Act) introduced by Tamil Nadu Act 34 of 2007 as well as the statutory rules known as the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning (Levy of Infrastructure and Amenities Charges) Rules, 2008 (for short 2008 Rules). Apart from the attack made on the vires of the Act and Rules, there are also individual cases seeking for exemption from the provisions of the Act on the ground that they are charitable trust running educational institutions and also seeking for reclassification of their buildings under different heads of entry so as to have lesser rate of levy for Infrastructure and Amenities charges (for short IAA Charges).

3. Some of the writ petitioners who have challenged the vires of the Act and Rules, have also filed individual writ petitions challenging the notices issued by the TCP Department or Local Planning Authorities. In some cases, persons who have executed bond as a condition precedent for getting planning permission have also challenged the subsequent demand to pay the balance amount, thereby resiling form the earlier undertaking given by them. In one or two cases, a contention was also made that as their buildings are located under the Special Economic Zone, they are entitled for the privileges conferred in terms of the Special Economic Zones Act, 2005.

4. Since number of counsels have appeared and arguments were repetitive, it is enough to set out the common contentions raised by them.

5. The first ground of attack made by the petitioners were that the object of TCP Act was only to provide planning development and use of rural and urban land in the State for the purposes connected therewith. Any amendment made must serve the object for which the Act was enacted. The present amendment is totally out of context with the provisions of the Act. It is stated that the power to levy development charges is already found under Section 59 and also relevant laws related to the local bodies for collection of development charges. There is no further requirement to collect an infrastructure and amenities charges separately. The collection of IAA charges and keeping it in a separate fund is clearly not contemplated under the provisions of the Act. Further, making such collection is not authorised by Article 265 of the Constitution as well as violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. Under Sections 63B and 63C, except the provisions were made for collection of IAA charges, the Act did not lay down any principle under which the delegates can collect the amount including the rates, duration and purpose for which such charges are collected. The amended provision inasmuch as had delegated essentially legislative function, the Act also suffers on account of the same. Hence it is liable to be set aside.

6. Since the builders have already been paying charges towards development in terms of Section 59, the further collection though under different nomenclature, but essentially for the very same purpose would amount to double levy and not authorised by relevant legislative entry. The levy of IAA charges is nothing but a fee and not a tax. The said collection of charges has no nexus with the object sought to be achieved and the relative benefits available to the petitioners including the users, there is no quid proquo and that the same is not indicated either in the Act or in the Rules. Hence the collection of such charges is an exercise of fraud committed by the State. The buildings which are located in the Special Economic Zone are entitled for special protection under