Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
C. SARAVANAN, J.
M/s. Stepsstone Promotors Private Limited, Represented by its Managing Director, K. Mothesh Kumar, Chennai - Appellant
Versus
Government of Tamil Nadu, Represented by its Secretary, Chennai & Others - Respondent
W.P. No. 11899 of 2022 & W.M.P. Nos. 11326 & 11327 of 2022
Decided On : 12-08-2022
Infrastructure and Amenities Charges - Town and Country Planning Act - The court directed the refund of charges paid by the petitioner for construction of a multi-storey building after the planning permission was cancelled and the land was to be sold as independent plots. The court held that the amount collected was a fee and not a compulsory exaction of amount like a tax, and therefore, the refusal to refund the amount was unsustainable.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought a refund of the amount paid towards Infrastructure and Amenities Charges after the planning permission for a multi-storey building was cancelled, and the land was to be sold as independent plots.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the refusal to refund the amount paid by the petitioner was unsustainable, as the amount collected was only a fee and not a compulsory exaction of amount like a tax.
Issues: The issue revolved around the entitlement of the petitioner for a refund of the Infrastructure and Amenities Charges after the cancellation of the building permission and the decision to sell the land as independent plots.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the amount collected was a fee and not a compulsory exaction of amount like a tax, and therefore, directed the respondents to refund the amount paid by the petitioner.
Final Decision: The court directed the respondents to refund the amount paid by the petitioner within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the court's order.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the order passed by the 2nd respondent, dated 02.03.2022 bearing reference number Na.Ka.7791/2020/DCB5 and quash the same and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to refund to the petitioner the sum of Rs.33,22,500/- (Rupees Thirty Three Lakh Twenty Two Thousand Five Hundred only) collected from the petitioner towards Infrastructure and Amenities Charges vice the cancelled/surrendered Planning Permits bearing numbers Na.Ka.No.1444/2015, dated 04.11.2015, and Na.Ka.No.12593/2016, dated 26.12.2016.)
1.The petitioner has filed this writ petition to quash the impugned order dated 02.03.2022 bearing reference Na.Ka.No.7791/2020/DCB5. By the impugned communication, the 2nd respondent has declined the request of the petitioner for refund of the amount paid by the petitioner towards the Infrastructure and Amenities Charges for construction of 124 units as a multi storey building pursuant to a planning permission granted to the petitioner.
2. It is submitted that the petitioner was unable to develop the land for putting up constructions and therefore got the plan cancelled and thereafter decided to plot the land and sell it as independent plots to prospective buyers. It is further submitted that layout has been approved by the respondents vide order dated 23.11.2022 bearing reference Na.Ka.No.3659/2020/Aa3. It is therefore submitted that in view of the cancellation of the building permission which was originally granted to the petitioner, the petitioner is entitled for refund of Rs.33,22,500/- paid by the petitioner in 2 installments (Rs.32,47,500/- and Rs.75,000/- during 2015 and 2017) towards Infrastructure and Amenities Charges.
3. It is the specific case of the petitioner that the petitioner had initially proposed to build a multi storage building and had paid the infrastructure and amenities charges in terms of Section 63A, 63B and 63C of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 has inserted by Tamil Nadu Act 28 of 1978 and the subsequent amendments by Tamil Nadu Act No.34 of 2007 with effect from 01.06.2007.
4. It is submitted that the petitioner was however unable to commence construction and therefore the petitioner decided to abandon the project and instead decided to sell the land by plotting it. It is further submitted that the issue is now squarely covered by the order of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.16647 of 2017 vide order dated 10.01.2018 in the case of The Member Secretary Vs The Housing Secretary, Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority, Egmore, Chennai – 600 008 and others.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the above decision has also been recently followed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.9370 of 2020 vide order dated 04.08.2020 in the case of Malles Constructions Private Limited Vs. Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep by its Secretary, The Housing and Urban Development Department, Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009 and others. It is therefore submitted that there is no impediments for refunding the amount paid by the petitioner in terms of the aforesaid decision.
6.The learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand submits the writ petition the amount which was paid appropriated to the funds contemplated under the aforesaid provisions of the Act and the Rules framed therein namely Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning (Levy of Infrastructure and Amenities Charges) Rules, 2008 and the notification issued thereunder in G.O.(Ms)No.86 Housing and Urban Development (UD 4(1)) Department dated 28.03.2012 and therefore there is no scope for refunding the amount.
7. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents.
8. There is no basis on which the impugned order can be sustained as the issue has already been decided by the Hon'ble Di
The amount collected as Infrastructure and Amenities Charges was held to be a fee and not a compulsory exaction of amount like a tax, leading to the court's decision to direct the refund of the amoun....
A mandamus issued by the court creates vested rights that restrict the imposition of additional charges for planning permission if initial conditions were met according to earlier mandates.
The court's decision was based on the absence of financial loss to the Government due to the collection of Infrastructure and Amenities Development charges at a lesser amount.
Court mandates refund of excess fees despite lack of statutory provision, upholding jurisdiction under Article 226.
The government order on reduced infrastructure charges is not retrospective; thus, liabilities incurred before its issuance must adhere to earlier regulations.
Discrepancies in housing allotment disputes are to be adjudicated with reference to the documents and evidences on record. The petitioner was granted liberty to approach the competent authority for w....
Unnecessary to demand revised building plan excluding unused block if petitioners undertake construction only in approved blocks.
[The court established that authorities cannot withhold deposits without legal justification, and such actions may constitute unjust enrichment, violating constitutional rights.]
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
