OSR charges cannot be demanded for layouts above 10,000 sq. meters if the OSR land has already been handed over to the local body.

The petitioner has come up with the above writ petition, challenging a communication issued by the first respondent rejecting the request of the petitioner to waive Open Space Reservation Charges (OSR Charges) for consideration of his application for the grant of planning permission.

2. I have heard Mr.G.Masilamani, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, Mr.V.S.Sethuraman, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the first respondent and Mr.V.Bharathidasan, learned Standing Counsel for the second respondent.

3. The petitioner, his wife and son purchased a property bearing Plot Nos.41, 42, 53 and 54 comprised in R.S.No.4288/71, Satyadev Avenue, MRC Nagar, Raja Annamalaipuram, Chennai-28, under a Sale Deed dated 11.7.2005, registered as document No.1894/2005. On 26.12.2008, the petitioner, his wife and son jointly applied for planning permission, to put up a multi storeyed building on the land.

4. By a letter dated 21.1.2010, the first respondent informed the petitioner and his wife and son that the application for planning permission was under consideration and that the applicants had to pay certain charges namely (i) development charges for the land and building, quantified at Rs.1,32,000/-(ii) security deposit for the building, quantified at Rs.4,70,000/- (iii) security deposit for display board, quantified at Rs.10,000/-(iv) Regularisation charges, quantified at Rs.1,20,000/-(v) OSR charges, quantified at Rs.58,50,000/- (vi) Infrastructure and Amenities charges, quantified at Rs.17,20,000/-(vii) IDC for metro water, quantified at Rs.3 lakhs and (viii) balance of scrutiny fee, quantified at Rs.10,000/-.

5. The petitioner complied with the demand made in the said letter dated 21.1.2010, in respect of all charges except OSR charges of Rs.58,50,000/-. In so far as the said demand is concerned, the petitioner pointed out that those charges could be levied only if the land of an extent equivalent to 10% of the total area of the layout was not reserved for open space and conveyed to the local body. In so far as the layout in which the plots of the petitioner are located is concerned, his predecessors in title had already earmarked 10% of the total area measuring about 6 grounds and 170 sq. ft., and also handed over the same to the Corporation of Chennai. Though a draft deed of conveyance was submitted by the predecessor-in-title of the petitioner, the document could not be executed and registered, on account of the lethargy on the part of the Corporation. However, the Corporation took possession of the land way back on 11.2.1976.

6. Therefore, on the strength of the above facts, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 2.2.2010, pointing out that the demand for OSR charges was not sustainable. Since there was no response, the petitioner submitted a reminder on 2.3.2010, followed by a representation dated 18.3.2010.

7. In the meantime, the first respondent sent a communication dated 2.3.2010 to the second respondent, seeking clarification as to whether 10% of the total area in the layout had been handed over to the Corporation as open space reservation or not. But the response of the second respondent to the said communication was not known.

8. On the ground that the respondents were dragging their feet without taking a decision, the petitioner filed a writ petition in W.P.No.7899 of 2010. The writ petition was disposed of by an order dated 21.4.2010, directing the first respondent to consider and dispose of the representation of the petitioner. In pursuance of the said order, the first respondent issued the impugned communication dated 25.6.2010, claiming that OSR charges cannot be waived. Hence the petitioner is before this Court.

9. The first respondent has filed a counter affidavit. In brief, it is contended therein (i) that the total extent of land in the parent layout, as it existed prior to 5.8.1975 was more than 10,000 sq. meters; (ii) that the site in question (belonging to the petitioner