SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(Mad) 2308

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
R. Suresh Kumar, J.
M/s. Arun Excello Homes Private Limited, Represented by its Managing Director, P. Suresh – Petitioner
Versus
The Secretary, Housing & Urban Development Department & Others – Respondents
W.P. No. 18328 of 2021
Decided On : 08-11-2021

Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:AR.L. Sundaresan for R. Kamala Rani, Advocates.
For the Respondent:NRR. Arun Natarajan, Government Advocate, A. Selvendran, Government Advocate.

Headnote:

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 - Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus - Tamil Nadu Multistoried and Public Building Rules, 1973 - Rule 4(a) - Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 - Tamil Nadu Change of Land Use (From Agriculture to Non-agriculture Purposes in Non-planning Areas) Rules, 2017 - Rule 9 - Land use conversion charge - Petitioner had submitted an application to respondent, who was formerly President of Panchayat, for declaration as multistoried residential building area consisting of various survey numbers - Respondent has demanded a sum of Rs.48,98,350/- as conversion charges of land, which was converted from agriculture land into Multistoried Building Area land – Held, if an application is made after 2017 Rules for purpose of seeking technical clearance or approval of proposed layout or construction etc. it can be treated as an application for purpose of conversion, of course, it would date back prior to 2017 Rules since conversion charge has not been paid, present applicant can also be levied or collected conversion charge of 3%, is absolutely unsustainable and against 2017 Rules as well as 1973 Rules also - If this logic now projected by respondents is accepted, then there will be no end, as by using Rule 9 of 2017 Rules, what are all conversions having been made prior to 2017 Rules can be revisited and in all these conversions, 3% conversion charge can be levied or collected by Local Authority from applicant for making application for layout plan or building plan etc. That kind of extreme proposition as projected by learned Government Advocate cannot be accepted by this Court - Court feels that impugned demand made through order passed by respondent cannot be sustained - Writ Petition is allowed

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the 4th respondent vide proceeding in Na.Ka.No.0901/2021/B4 dated 19.04.2021 and to quash the proceedings to the extent of the demand made by the 4th respondent and consequently direct the respondents to refund the amount of 48,98,350/- with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. which was paid by the petitioner.)

1. The prayer sought for herein is for a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the 4th respondent vide proceeding in Na.Ka.No.0901/2021/B4 dated 19.04.2021 and to quash the proceedings to the extent of the demand made by the 4th respondent and consequently direct the respondents to refund the amount of 48,98,350/- with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. which was paid by the petitioner.

2. The petitioner is a Private Limited Company promoting lands and buildings. This company is having lands at various survey numbers in Mathur Village/Panchayat at Sriperumbudur Taluk, Kancheepuram District.

3. On 05.01.2010, the petitioner had submitted an application to the 4th respondent, who was formerly President of Mathur Panchayat, for declaration as multistoried residential building area consisting of various survey numbers in Mathur Village. The 4th respondent i.e., Village Panchayat had passed a resolution on 09.02.2010 in this regard, which was subsequently forwarded with recommendation to the 3rd respondent on 15.02.2010.

4. The petitioner also had submitted an application on 20.09.2012 to the 3rd respondent for such a declaration as multistoried residential building area for land parcel situated at Mathur Village in various survey numbers.

5. Pursuant to the said application made by the petitioner, the 2nd and 3rd respondents sought for certain clarification, which was clarified by the petitioner. Subsequently, the 2nd respondent vide proceedings dated 27.05.2015 had declared the said site i.e., the land consisting of various survey numbers belongs to the petitioner, as Multistoried Residential Area in accordance with Rule 4(a) of the Tamil Nadu Multistoried and Public Building Rules, 1973 (in short 1973 Rules').

6. The 2nd respondent also marked a copy of the declaration to the Government Central Press for gazetting of the said declaration. Accordingly, in Government Gazette No.24 Part VI dated 17.06.2015, the declaration has been notified.

7. Prior to the said declaration made in the year 2015, the land in question belongs to the petitioner was agricultural land. Therefore, having converted the same into Multistoried Residential Area such a declaration was made on 17.06.2015.

8. Thereafter, the petitioner had submitted a proposal on 13.06.2019 for layout development to the 4th respondent for a portion of the land, which had already been declared so, in various survey numbers of the said Village. This was forwarded by the 4th respondent to the 3rd respondent on 13.06.2019 for according a technical clearance.

9. As per the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 (in short 'the Act'), the petitioner since had to give the lands as gift, which were earmarked for public or common purposes, such a request was made on 29.09.2020, pursuant to which, the land earmarked for public or common purposes in the proposed layout had been registered and a document has been executed in this regard in favour of the Local Authority on 25.02.2021. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent issued orders on 17.03.2021 communicating the same to the 3rd respondent and the 3rd respondent had directed the petitioner on 23.03.2021 to pay necessary statutory levies viz., Centage charges, Scrutiny Fees, Armed Forces Flag Day Fund and Display Board Deposit Fees. In all these heads, the amount payable by the petitioner had been paid and this has been intimated to the 3rd respondent by the petitioner vide his letter dated 25.03.2021.

10. Subsequently, the 3rd respondent

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top