Back
2018 Supreme(Mad) 2853
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
C.V. KARTHIKEYAN, J.
Lancor Holdings Ltd, Rep. by its Managing Director R.V. Shekar - Petitioner
Versus
State of Tamil Nadu, Rep by the Secretary to Government, Chennai & Another - Respondent
W.P. No. 13658 of 2012 & M.P. No. 1 of 2012
Decided on : 22-11-2018
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:P.R. Raman, SC, C. Seethapathy, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Sri Jayanthi, Special Government Pleader, Karthick Raja, Advocate.
Headnote:
Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 301, 302 and 303 – Multi-Storeyed Building Plan - Granted Approval - Application submitted by petitioner was processed by respondents and finally petitioner received a letter from second respondent seeking certain corrections in plan - These corrections were complied with and letter was sent by petitioner - Petitioner also received and submitted no objection certificates from various departments - Thereafter second respondent also addressed commissioner corporation seeking clarification whether land where project is to be effected had been reserved for any public purpose - Clarification was also issued - Finally it has been stated by petitioner that in case of multi storeyed building plan has to be scrutinized by a panel consisting of members chaired by member secretary - This meeting was held - Panel approved building plan and recommended case of petitioner to first respondent for further processing - Thereafter first respondent by letter granted approval for multiple storeyed building plan permission - Certain conditions were imposed including that of a revised planning permission application form to be furnished with structural stability certificate and a no objection certificate from indian air force - Held, Thereafter further process begins - On one hand petitioner begins to construct building and before constructing such building necessary payments have to be made under various heads as stipulated - Two of those are relatable to guideline value - That value has to be fixed only on date of approval of building plan - If plan had been approved on a particular date and thereafter if second respondent delays and then obtains guideline value which had increased either by an efflux of time or by revision in guideline value then petitioner cannot be mulcted with such charges - Petitioner has to pay charges as on date of approval - Petitioner will be liable to pay additional charges only if rules so stipulate specifically - In present case increase in guideline value was subsequent to date of approval - Impugned letter has not given any reason for delay in demand after guideline value had been revised - Reason has been given only in counter affidavit and that cannot be accepted - If in approval letter itself demand as per increase in rate of guideline value had been indicated then that increase will have to be read along with approval - Writ Petition Is Allowed.
1. The Writ petition has been filed by a Public Limited Company in the nature of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the second respondent namely the Member Secretary, Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority [CMDA] Chennai in letter No.C3/5359/2011 dated 26.04.2012 and quash the demand of Rs.40,10,000/- for Open Space Reservation Charge [OSR charge] and Rs.4,09,00,000/- for Premium FSI charges [PFSI charges] which had been computed on the basis of the revised guideline value of Rs.3,000/- per sq.ft on land in T.S.No.53, O.S.No.97/15, Adambakkam, Alandur Taluk, Kancheepuram bearing new No.3, Old No.19, 3rd Main Road, Ram Nagar, Nanganalloor, Chennai and consequently, direct the second respondent to accept from petitioner, the OSR charges and PFSI charges computed on the basis of the guideline value prevalent on the date for grant of approval by the first respondent, the Secretary to Government, Housing and Urban Development Department, State of Tamil Nadu, Chennai for the petitioner's application for planning permit namely 30.03.2012.
2. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner undertook the development of an extent of 19 grounds and 2315 sq.ft of land in T.S.No.53, O.S.No.97/15, at Adambakkam Village, Alandur Taluk, Kancheepuram District, bearing New No.3, Old No.19, 3rd Main Road, Ramnagar, Nanganallur, Chennai. The petitioner had submitted an application for planning permission for construction of stilt floor plus six floors plus seventh floor (part) Multi storyed residential building with 64 dwelling units. This application was submitted to the second respondent, Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority,[ CMDA ] on 11.04.2011 together with necessary scrutiny fees as fixed. For obtaining sanction for construction of multi storyed building, several approvals and No Objection Certificates have to be obtained. These stipulations are governed by G.O.Ms.No.163, Housing and Urban Development [UD I] Department dated 09.09.2009. This Government order gives guidelines for collection of PFSI which depends on the road width. The amount of PFSI shall be equivalent to the cost of proportionate land as per the guideline value of the Registration Department. This Government order was in accordance with the Regulation 36 of the Development Regulations for the Second Master Plan for Chennai Metropolitan area, 2026. The Government had approved the guidelines for PFSI. The OSR charges are also calculated in accordance with the valuation of the Registration Department. This has been provided in the Second Master plan for Chennai Metropolitan Area, 2026 issued by the second respondent/ CMDA.
3. The application submitted by the petitioner dated 11.04.2011 was processed by the respondents and finally the petitioner received a letter from the second respondent on 20.01.2012 seeking certain corrections in the plan. These corrections were complied with and letter dated 23.01.2012 was sent by the petitioner. The petitioner also received and submitted No Objection Certificates from various Departments. Thereafter, the second respondent also addressed the Commissioner, Corporation of Chennai seeking clarification whether the land where the project is to be effected, had been reserved for any public purpose. Clarification was also issued.
4. Finally, it has been stated by the petitioner that in the case of multi storeyed building, the plan has to be scrutinized by a Panel consisting of 9 members chaired by the Member Secretary of CMDA. This meeting was held on 25.01.2012. The Panel approved the building plan and recommended the case of the petitioner to the first respondent for further processing. This was by letter dated 29.02.2012. Thereafter, the first respondent, by letter No. [M.S.No.93] dated 30.03.2012, granted approval for the multiple storeyed building plan permission. Certain con
