ORDER :

This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned letter issued by the 1st respondent dated 17.06.2016 and consequential demand letter dated 30.06.2016 issued by the 2nd respondent to the petitioner by raising a demand of a sum of Rs.5,72,20,000/- payable towards premium FSI charges and for a consequential direction to the 2nd respondent to refund the amount that was paid by the petitioner towards premium FSI charges.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.

3. The case of the petitioner is that they wanted to develop a property and initially they decided to put up a construction with 24 dwelling units and other amenities. This structure was proposed to be developed in a built up area of 9326.21 sq.m. The petitioner made an application on 17.04.2013 before the 2nd respondent seeking for planning permission and other approvals.

4. The planning permission was granted by the 2nd respondent on 23.10.2014. The 2nd respondent while granting the approval, also granted the petitioner the entitlement for a premium FSI for 9326.21 sq.m. The petitioner made a payment of Rs.12,27,25,000/- towards the premium FSI charges and the same was also acknowledged by the 2nd respondent through receipt dated 12.06.2014.

5. The petitioner by taking into consideration the market conditions, wanted to make the property more affordable and hence decided to file a revision of the existing planning permission. Thereby, the petitioner decided to build a residential building with 49 dwelling units in a reduced built up area of 9314.59 sq.m. The petitioner applied for the revised planning permit before the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent issued a letter dated 27.01.2016 for getting the fresh guideline value for assessing the premium FSI charges. The petitioner made a representation on 01.02.2016 to the 2nd respondent stating that there was no requirement to obtain any fresh guideline value since the premium FSI that was already granted earlier has vested with the petitioner and no additional FSI has been sought for by the petitioner in the revised plan.

6. The representation given by the petitioner was not considered by the 2nd respondent and the 2nd respondent proceeded to issue the demand letter dated 30.06.2016 demanding additional premium FSI charges of a sum of Rs.5,72,20,000/- The petitioner had no other alternative except to make the payment since the development must go on. Therefore, the petitioner made the payment without prejudice to their rights on 08.07.2016.

7. On receipt of the payment from the petitioner, the planning permit was issued to the petitioner on 29.07.2016 and the building permission was also granted by the Corporation of Chennai on 19.10.2016. Aggrieved by the demand made by the respondents towards the additional premium FSI charges of a sum of Rs.5,72,20,000/-, the present writ petition has been filed before this Court.

8. A careful reading of the letter addressed by CMDA to the 1st respondent through letter dated 15.03.2016 shows that there is a specific reference made with regard to a similar claim that was raised for another project that was developed by M/s.A.R. Property Developers and the same being made a subject matter of challenge in W.P.No.30150 of 2014. It is further mentioned in the letter that the matter has been heard by this Court and it has been reserved for orders. It is therefore clear that the respondents were aware that a similar demand that was made for the payment of the additional premium FSI charges was already put to question before this Court.

9. In view of the above, it becomes necessary for this Court to consider as to what happened to this case which was referred to by CMDA. At this juncture, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that final orders were passed in the said writ petition and to substantiate the same, the learned Senior Counsel cited the judgment in the case of M/s.A.R. Pr