LexCHENNAI METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY REP. BY ITS MEMBER-SECRETARY & ANR. versus PRESTIGE ESTATES PROJECT LTD.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B C D E F G H 859 CHENNAI METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY REP. BY ITS MEMBER-SECRETARY & ANR. v. PRESTIGE ESTATES PROJECT LTD. (Civil Appeal No. 5642-5643 of 2019) JULY 29, 2019 [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD AND INDIRA BANERJEE, JJ.] Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 – ss.48, 49 and 63B – Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning (Levy of Infrastructure and Amenities charges) Rules, 2008 – r.4 – Second master plan for Chennai Metropolitan Area 2006 (Regulation) – regulation 36 – Respondent submitted application on 22.03.2011 for planning permission to construct a multi-storeyed building complex – Appellant issued a demand notice to the respondent to deposit some charges including Infrastructure & Amenities charge (I & A) and premium FSI charge amounting in order to process its application – Appellant demanded the charges on 27.03.2012 and the respondent paid the same on 28.03.2012 – On 26.03.2012, the Government revised the guideline value with effect from 01.04.2012 – On 28.03.2012, G.O.Ms No.86 was issued whereby the I & A charges for different categories and building falling under the jurisdiction of the appellant stood increased – Pursuant thereto, a demand notice was issued on 22.08.2012 by the appellant by which demand was revised under two heads, i.e. balance I & A charges and balance premium FSI charge – Writ petition by the respondent against the said demand notice – Single Judge of the High Court allowed the writ petition and held that a right had accrued to the respondent to obtain planning permission and that it could not be divested by the subsequent amendment with effect from 01.04.2012 – Writ appeal was dismissed – On appeal, held: R.4 of the Rules, 2008 as it stands prescribes the minimum and maximum rates for the levy of I & A charges – The proposal which was initiated by the government on 28.03.2012 envisaged the elimination of the minimum and maximum rates specified in r.4 as a result of which cl.(6) of [2019] 9 S.C.R. 859 859 A B C D E F G H 860 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 9 S.C.R. G.O.Ms No.86 incorporates a requirement of amending the Rules, 2008 – However, Rules, 2008 were not amended – Absent an amendment to the Rules, 2008, the High Court held that the demand for I & A charges at the revised rate could not be enforced against the respondent – The order of the High Court insofar as the demand for I & A charges are concerned is maintainable – Insofar, levy of premium FSI charges are concerned, the levy of premium FSI charges under regulation 36 of Regulations, 2006 is incident to the planning authority allowing premium FSI over and above the FSI which is normally allowable – On 27.03.2012, while issuing a demand notice to the respondent, it was made clear by the appellant that the planning permission was still to be issued – The submission of the application for permission and the steps taken by the respondent to comply with the conditions and deposit of the charges did not confer a vested right in the respondent for grant of planning permission – Once the revised charges came into force with effect from 01.04.2012, the respondent, as the applicant for planning permission, was bound to pay the revised charges – The grant of any permission post the revision of the premium FSI charges would necessarily be subject to the revised charges – Thus, respondent, as the developer is liable to pay revised charges. Respondent applied for planning permission to construct a multi-storeyed building complex on 22.03.2011. The appellant- planning authority under the provisions of the Act, 1971, was required to consider the application for the grant of planning permission u/s.49. The appellant issued a demand notice to the respondent to deposit some charges including Infrastructure & Amenities charge (I & A) amounting to Rs.8,34,40,000/- and premium FSI charge amounting to Rs. 44,75,88,000/- in order to process its application. The appellant demanded the charges on 27.03.2012 and the respondent paid the same on 28.03.2012. On 26.03.2012, the Government revised the guideline value with effect from 01.04.2012. On 28.03.2012, G.O.Ms No.86 was issued whereby the I & A charges for different categories and building falling under the jurisdiction of the appellant stood increased. Pursuant thereto, a demand notice was issued on 22.08.2012 by the appellant by which demand was revised under two heads, i.e. A B C D E F G H 861 balance I & A charges amounting to Rs. 4,17,15,000/- and balance premium FSI ch
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.