CHENNAI METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY REPRESENTED BY ITS MEMBER SECRETARY versus D. RAJAN DEV AND OTHERS

Citation: [2019] 16 S.C.R. 1095 · Decided: 11-12-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R. BANUMATHI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1095
CHENNAI METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY REPRESENTED BY
ITS MEMBER SECRETARY
v.
D. RAJAN DEV AND OTHERS
(Civil Appeal No. 9336 of 2019)
December 11, 2019
[R. BANUMATHI, A. S. BOPANNA
AND HRISHIKESH ROY, JJ.]
Housing – Residential-cum-Shopping Building – Calculation
of Premium FSI charges – First Respondent, a developer was
carrying on construction activities on basis of a planning
permission granted to him – Thereafter, the State Government
introduced a scheme called ‘Premium FSI Scheme’, wherein the
Government permitted any builder willing to pay FSI charges to
increase FSI above the normally permitted FSI – On 04.05.2011,
the first respondent made an application with revised proposal for
permission to have additional FSI area – The revised plan of the
first respondent was considered and forwarded to the Government
with recommendation for approval – In the meanwhile, the
Registration Department revised and notified the revised guideline
value w.e.f. 01.04.2012 as per which the guideline value was
increased from Rs.1650/- per sq.ft. to Rs.5,000/- per sq.ft. – On
29.05.2012, the Government granted approval to the revised plan
of the first respondent – The premium was levied as Rs.7,61,
40,000/- – The respondent made the representation against the
calculation and also regarding the area, however, the same was
rejected – Writ petition – First Respondent contended that the date
of application should be considered for the purpose of calculating
Premium FSI charges and not as per the guideline value prevailing
on the date of approval of the plan – The writ petition was
dismissed by the Single Judge of the High Court  –  However, the
Division Bench of the High Court set aside the order of the Single
Judge – On appeal, held: No right accrues to the builder by mere
submission of a plan for construction of a building which has not
been sanctioned by the Competent Authority – The rates prevailing
at the time of granting of permission are the rates which an
   [2019] 16 S.C.R. 1095
1095
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1096
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 16 S.C.R.
applicant has to pay – The respondent/applicant cannot claim the
benefit of the earlier guideline value existing prior to the date when
approval was granted by the Government – Therefore, the
respondent will have to pay FSI Premium charges based on the
guideline value as existing on the date of grant of approval – When
the Government sanctioned the approval on 29.05.2012, the
Division Bench of the High Court erred in directing the appellant
to calculate the FSI charges as per the guideline value as on
04.05.2011 – The impugned Judgment of the Division Bench of
the High Court, therefore, set aside.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. In the impugned judgment, the Division Bench
of the High Court has relied upon Union of India and Others v.
Dev Raj Gupta and Others and Union of India and another v.
Mahajan Industries Ltd. and another. The ratio of those decisions
is not applicable to the case in hand as those decisions relate
to application for conversion of the land and not building
permission application. That apart, in those cases, there was a
delay of more than three years in deciding the application. In
the present case, there was no delay on the part of the appellant-
CMDA or the Government to consider the first respondent’s
application for approval. [Para 24] [1108-G-H]
2. As submitted by the appellant-CMDA, the conduct of
the first respondent is also to be taken note of. After the levy
of Premium FSI charges calling upon the first respondent to pay
a sum of Rs.7,61,40,000/-, the first respondent submitted a
representation on 19.07.2012 requesting to revise the Premium
FSI charges by considering the guideline value prevailing as on
the date of the application i.e. 04.05.2011. The said
representation was rejected by the appellant-CMDA by its letter
dated 31.08.2012 and the first respondent was directed to make
payment of Premium FSI Charges. The first respondent was also
informed that if the payment was not made within sixty days, the
application will be returned. The first respondent’s further
representation dated 14.12.2012 also came to be rejected.
Thereafter, by letters dated 23.05.2013 and 14.06.2013, the first
respondent had prayed for thirty days’ time for remitting the
Premium FSI charges as demanded by the appellant-CMDA. By
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1097
communication dated 19.06.2013, the first respondent was
granted time upto 15.07.2013 to pay Premium FSI

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.