Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 61975
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, J
THE COMMISSIONER – Appellant
Versus
M/S.JAMALS – Respondent
W.P.No.19675 of 2017 | Civil Appeal No.3034 of 2022
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.R.Mohan Doss
For the Respondents: Mr.V.Raghavachari
A renewal application for a building permit after the original permit lapses is treated as a fresh application, obligating the builder to pay new charges under the Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, 1920.
Headnote:(A) Tamil Nadu District Municipalities Act, 1920 - Sections 197, 204, and 321 - Building permit charges - The court held that the renewal application for a building permit, after the original permit lapsed, constitutes a fresh application, obligating the builder to pay new charges. The CMDA's collection of planning charges is distinct from the Municipality's building permit charges. (Paras 6, 8, 19, 26)
(B) Legal principles - The court emphasized that the planning permission and building permit serve different purposes and cannot be equated. The Municipality has the authority to collect fees for the renewal of permits under the Act. (Paras 27, 28)
Facts of the case:
The 1st respondent applied for a building permit after paying development charges to the CMDA. The permit lapsed due to non-completion of construction within the stipulated time, leading to a renewal application which was contested by the Municipality regarding additional charges.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the renewal application must be treated as a fresh application, thus validating the Municipality's demand for charges.
Issues: Whether the Municipality's demand for renewal charges is valid when planning charges were previously collected by CMDA.
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that the lapse of the original permit necessitated a fresh application, thereby allowing the Municipality to impose new charges as per the Act.
Result: Writ Appeal allowed, and the impugned order was set aside.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of construction permits and charges. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. arguments regarding double collection of charges. (Para 5 , 10 , 11) |
| 3. legal provisions on renewal and charges. (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 4. court's observation on the validity of charge demands. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 5. interpretation of lapse and renewal of permissions. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22) |
| 6. clarification on planning permission vs building permit. (Para 27 , 28 , 29) |
| 7. final decision to set aside the writ order. (Para 30) |
[Judgment was delivered by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.)
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 w
