Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, C. KUMARAPPAN, JJ.
The Commissioner, Thiruverkadu Municipality – Appellant
Versus
M/s. Jamals – Respondent
W.A. No. 2182 of 2018, C.M.P. Nos. 16919, 16920 of 2018
Decided On : 28-06-2024
Municipalities - Building Permit - Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, 1920 - Sections 197, 204, 321 - The court interpreted the provisions regarding the lapse of building permits and the authority of municipalities to collect fees for renewal applications, concluding that fresh charges could be imposed after the lapse of the original permit.
Fact of the Case:
The 1st respondent sought permission from CMDA for construction, paid required charges, and received planning permission. After failing to complete the building within the stipulated time, they applied for renewal, which was granted without additional charges. The Municipality then demanded renewal fees, leading to a legal challenge.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the demand for renewal fees by the Municipality was valid as the original building permit had lapsed, and the renewal application was to be treated as a fresh application, allowing the Municipality to impose new charges.
Issues: Whether the Thiruverkadu Municipality's demand for renewal charges after the lapse of the original building permit was valid.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that under the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, a lapsed building permit necessitates a fresh application, allowing the Municipality to collect renewal fees.
Result: The writ appeal was allowed, and the order of the Writ Court was set aside.
JUDGMENT :
S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, J.
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent to allow this writ appeal by setting aside the order dated 29.11.2017 made in W.P. No. 19675 of 2017 passed by the Learned Judge.
1. The undisputed facts are that 1st respondent submitted an application seeking permission from Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority (CMDA) under the CMDA Development Regulations. The Member Secretary, CMDA vide letter dated 17.10.2013 intimated to the 1st respondent about the remittance of development charges and other charges as applicable under the Regulations. The 1st respondent has paid the same. One of the Clause stipulated in the letter would indicate that the demand notice (DC advice) pertaining to the proposed construction falls within the jurisdiction of Thiruverkadu Municipality. The 1st respondent paid the charges as demanded by CMDA. Consequently, the Member Secretary, CMDA transmitted the permission granted under the CMDA Regulation to the Commissioner, Thiruverkadu Municipality vide letter dated 05.12.2013. The Clause stipulated in the letter would indicate that the permission granted by CMDA is not final one under the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, 1920. The 1st respondent has to approach Thiruverkadu Municipality and obtain building permit and commence construction of the proposed building.
2. It is not in dispute that CMDA granted planning permission on 05.12.2012, which is valid for three years and expired on 04.12.2016. Consequently, Thiruverkadu Municipality granted building permit on 17.01.2014 for three years and expired on 16.01.2017. Since the proposed construction is for over and above G+2 Floors in Chennai Metropolitan area, permission from the CMDA is to be obtained. Permission granted by the CMDA by collecting development charges will be transmitted to the Municipality concerned and the Municipality has to grant building permit. The 1st respondent paid developmental charges to CMDA and after transmission of the permission to the Thiruverkadu Municipality, he paid the building permit charges and other infrastructure facility charges as demanded by Thiruverkadu Municipality. The charges prescribed by CMDA and Thiruverkadu Municipality are independent and unconnected with each other.
3. Thiruverkadu Municipality in its builing plan permission dated 17.01.2014, imposed conditions to the 1st respondent builder stating that they have to abide by the restrictions imposed by CMDA and the provisions of the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, 1920. Pertinently, Clause 5 of the building permit dated 17.01.2014 states that the building in all respects must be completed within the time limit stipulated in the building permit. In the event of non-completion, the 1st respondent should submit a fresh application for seeking building permit from the Municipality.
4. Accepting the conditions, the 1st respondent commenced building construction. Admittedly, the 1st respondent had not completed the building within the time limit stipulated by CMDA and Thiruverkadu Municipality. Consequently, the 1st respondent submitted a renewal application for renewal of planning permission to CMDA. CMDA granted renewal of planning permission and again transmitted to Thiruverkadu Municipality. Thiruverkadu Municipality in turn granted building permit a fresh in proceedings dated 24.03.2017. While granting renewal of building permit, the Commissioner, Thiruverkadu Municipality demanded a sum of Rs.35,20,093/- towards charges. The said amount was directed to be remitted within a period of seven days. The said order of the appellant came to be challenged in the writ petition.
5. The Writ Court allowed the writ petition relying on the fact that the CMDA renewed the planning permission without collecting charges. Therefore, Thiruverkadu Municipality cannot demand charges for renewal of building permit. The building permit charges were originally collected in the year 2014 by the Municipality. Therefore, they
A lapsed building permit requires a fresh application, allowing municipalities to impose new fees for renewal under the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act.
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 main legal point established in the judgment is that the authority to levy development charges must be in existence at the time of granting permission, and the recovery of the amount of premium o....
Development charges for nazul land must be assessed and determined at the time of granting permission, and any subsequent demand based on later government resolutions is not legally valid.
Statutory provisions governing unauthorized constructions must be adhered to by municipal authorities when issuing orders or taking action against such constructions.
Prior development permissions granted under repealed rules remain valid despite subsequent regulatory changes, and cannot be revoked retroactively by new laws.
The approval of the Board of Administrators was a mere formality, and the calculation of retention fees should have been based on the rates prevailing during the financial year 2018-19, as per the bu....
The actions of local authorities under statutory provisions must be clearly within jurisdiction; mere allegations of unauthorized use do not suffice for enforcement actions without supporting evidenc....
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
