M/s.Camp Tech LLP vs The State of Tamil Nadu

WP No. 7490 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 03-11-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
WP No. 7490 of 2021
And
WMP.No. 8010 of 2021
CNR: {HCMA010364722021}
M/s.Camp Tech LLP
Earlier Camp Tech Pvt. Ltd,
Rep by authorized Signatory, South Phase,
Ambedkar Nagar, SIDCO Industrial Estate,
Gandhi Nagar, Chennai- 600 032.
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The State of Tamil Nadu
Rep by its Secretary to Government, Housing and
Urban Development Department,
Fort,St George,Chennai-9.
2. Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority
Rep by its member Secretary, Thalamuthu
Natarajan Maligai, No.1,Gandhi Irwin Road,
Chennai- 600 008.
3. M/s. ELCOT ,
rep by its Managing Director,
692, Anna Salai, Chennai- 600 002.
..Respondent(s)
__________
Page1 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 05:17:35 pm )

WP No. 7490 of 2021
Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying
for issuance of writ of certiorarified mandamus, calling for the records of 2nd
respondent comprised in their Advice Memo dated 20.09.2019 in Letter No.C3/
(S)/ 15493/ 2019, quash the same in so far as it pertains to the demand of OSR
charges contained in SI.No.5 for property developed by petitioner at in plot
no.25A and 25B,at SIDCO Thiru-Vi-Ka Industrial Estate, South Phase,5th
Cross Street, Guindy, Chennai- 600 032, comprised in survey No.24, 25 (part),
26 (part), 1/3 (part), 2/3 (part), 3/3 (part), Block No.5,Alandur village Adyar
Admeasuring 1.043 Acres and consequently direct 2nd respondent to refund the
sum of Rs.75 lakhs collected under protest from petitioner, for the said purpose
under the impugned order, with interest 12 % per annum from 20.09.2019.
For Petitioner(s): Mr. Satish Parasaran, Senior Advocate
For Mr.S.Ramesh
For Respondent(s): Mr.S.Sriram, GA –R1
Mr.P.V. Balasubramanian, AAG
Assisted by Mrs. P.Veena Suresh –R2
Mr.K.Palaniappan – R3
ORDER
The petitioner challenges the Advice Memo dated 20.09.2019 in Letter
No.C3/(S)/15493/2019, quash the same in so far as it pertains to the demand of
OSR charges contained in Sl.No.5 for property developed by petitioner at in
plot No.25A and 25B, at SIDCO Thiru-vi-ka Industrial Estate, South Phase, 5th
Cross Street, Guindy. Chennai 32. comprised in Survey No.24. 25 (Part), 26
__________
Page2 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 05:17:35 pm )

WP No. 7490 of 2021
(Part), 1/3 (Part).2/3 (Part).3/3 (part), Block No.5. Alandur Village, Adyar
admeasuring 1.043 Acres and consequently direct 2nd respondent to refund the
sum of Rs 75 lakhs collected under protest from petitioner, for the said purpose
under the impugned order, with interest @12% per annum from 20.9.2019.
2. The petitioner submitted an application seeking planning permission
for the construction of an IT Park comprising a basement, part stilt floor, part
ground floor and 11 upper floors on the aforesaid property. By impugned
communication, the second respondent called upon the petitioner to pay various
charges, including open space reservation charges and premium FSI charges, as
a condition for the grant of planning permission. The petitioner objected to the
demand and submitted a representation challenging the levy. Nevertheless, the
petitioner remitted the demanded amounts under protest and without prejudice
to its rights. The present writ petition has been filed insofar as the demand
relates to premium Open Reservation Charges.
3. Mr. Satish Parasaran, learned Senior Advocate representing the learned
counsel for the petitioner submitted that the demand of OSR are made pursuant
to the G.O.Ms.No. 743, Housing and Urban Development (UDI Department)
dated 10.05.1979. However, the said G.O provides exemption for all layouts,
sub divisions approved or effected before 05.08.1975. In the instance, the plot
is situated in an Industrial Layout formed by the SIDCO as early as in 1966 and
final approval was granted in 1971 and the lands were left out for open spaces
__________
Page3 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 05:17:35 pm )

WP No. 7490 of 2021
under the layout scheme formulated in 1966 finalised in 1971. Therefore, the
impugned communication demanding OSR charges of Rs.75 lakhs lacks
statutory authority and the same is arbitrary and discriminatory.
4. In response, Mr.P.V.Balsubramaniam, learned Addl. Advocate General
representing the State submitted that the amalgamated project site did not
provide for OSR land and development regulations granting developers the
beneficial option to pay OSR charges in view of physical land reservation.
Since OSR land was reserved or gifted in the original layout for this plot, there
is no double exaction and therefore, the demand made is in conformity with
G.O.Ms.No. 743, Housing and Urban Development (UDI Department) dated
10.05.1979.
5. Though the industrial layout was formed before the said G.O came into
effect, however the same does not provide for exemption in respect of subject
plots before 05.08.1974, therefore the impugned demand is in conformity with
G.O.Ms.No. 743, dated 10.05.1979, and therefore, cannot be interefered.
6. All the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and the
materials placed on record have been duly considered.
7. Before dwelling into the issue at hand, it is relevant to reproduce the
relevant portion of G.O.Ms.No. 743, Housing and Urban Development (UDI
Department) dated 10.05.1979 which reads thus;
__________
Page4 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 05:17:35 pm )

WP No. 7490 of 2021
“The Government have examined the whole question de novo in
consultation with the Member Secretary, Madras Metropolitan
Development Authority and the Director of Town and country
Planning. consider that it is not justifiable to collect open space
reservation charge from those who have made sub divisions in
layouts without leaving the required open space reservation
charge from those who have made sub divisions in layouts
without leaving the required open space before the
Development Control Rules were introduced. Moreover the
Corporation will not be able to acquire the lands to an extent of
10% of the total layout area in the already built-up area with
the amount collected from the people of that area as open space
reservation charges for providing the needed open space for
such people. In order to remove the difficulties referred to
above, the Government direct that Rule 19 (a) (iv) of the
Development Control Rules be modified as follows:-
Extent of lands Reservation
1) Upto 3000
Nil
sq.metres
2) Between 3000
10% of the area, excluding
sq.metres and 10,000
Roads or in the alternative, He
sq.metres
shall pay single rate of market
value of equivalent land as per
the valuation of the
Registration Department.
3) Above 10,000
10% of the area, excluding
sq.metres
Roads, shall be reserved and
This space shall be maintained
__________
Page5 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 05:17:35 pm )

WP No. 7490 of 2021
As communal and recreational
Open Space to the Satisfaction
of the Authority Or transferred
to the Authority for
maintenance. It is obligatory to
reserve 10% of the layout area
4) The Government also direct that the above modification of
the open space reservation rule be given effect to from 5th
August 1975 (date of coming into force of Development Control
Rules). Consequently, all layouts/sub divisions approved or
effected before 05.08.75 will be exempted from the above
requirements without insisting upon open space reservation.
The Government also direct that no open space reservation
charges need be collected in sub-divisions in areas earmarked
for residential use in approved layouts provided the minimum
prescribed plot extent is maintained.”
8. Admittedly, the subject plots are industrial plots situated in an
Industrial Estate formed by SIDCO pursuant to an approval granted by the
competent authority. Therefore, the industrial layout having been approved
before 05.08.1975, is exempted from the payment of OSR charges though the
extent of subject plots exceeds 3000 square meters. The Government also
directs that the above modification of the open space reservation rule be given
th
effect to from 5 August 1975 (date of coming into force of Development
Control Rules). Consequently, all layouts/subdivisions approved or effected
__________
Page6 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 05:17:35 pm )

WP No. 7490 of 2021
before 05.08.1975 will be exempted from the above requirements without
insisting upon open space reservation. The Government also directs that no
open space reservation charges need be collected in subdivisions in areas
earmarked for residential use in approved layouts, provided the minimum
prescribed plot extent is maintained.”
9. A plain reading of the aforesaid Government Order makes it clear
that the Government, having considered the difficulties involved in collecting
OSR charges from persons who had already formed layouts or subdivisions
before the introduction of the Development Control Rules, decided to grant
exemption to all layouts and subdivisions approved or effected before
05.08.1975. The exemption was intended to ensure that persons who had
already developed their properties in accordance with the then prevailing
requirements were not subsequently burdened with the obligation of providing
open space or paying charges in lieu thereof.
10. The relevant date for determining the applicability of the exemption
is, therefore, the date on which the layout or subdivision was approved or
effected. The Government Order does not make the exemption dependent upon
the extent of the individual plots forming part of such an approved layout. The
classification based on the extent of land, namely, upto 3,000 square metres,
between 3,000 and 10,000 square metres and above 10,000 square metres,
governs the OSR requirements in cases to which the modified Development
__________
Page7 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 05:17:35 pm )

WP No. 7490 of 2021
Control Rules apply. It cannot be read in isolation so as to defeat the specific
exemption subsequently provided in the very same Government Order for
layouts and subdivisions approved or effected before 05.08.1975.
11. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the subject plots form part
of an industrial layout developed by SIDCO in 1966 and that the layout
received final approval in 1971. Thus, the industrial layout was approved well
before 05.08.1975. The subject plots are not independent subdivisions formed
after the introduction of the Development Control Rules, but form part of an
already approved industrial layout.
12. Once the layout itself falls within the category of layouts approved
before 05.08.1975, the exemption provided under G.O.Ms.No.743, dated
10.05.1979, would squarely apply. The fact that the extent of the subject plots
exceeds 3,000 square metres would not take the petitioner outside the scope of
the exemption. The respondents cannot rely upon the extent-based requirements
under the modified Rule while ignoring the specific exemption granted under
the concluding portion of the Government Order.
13. The contention of the learned Additional Advocate General that the
present demand does not amount to double collection, since OSR land had been
reserved or gifted in the original layout, does not alter the above legal position.
The issue in the present writ petition is not merely whether the petitioner has
provided OSR land or whether the present demand results in double collection.
__________
Page8 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 05:17:35 pm )

WP No. 7490 of 2021
The issue is whether the respondents are legally entitled to demand OSR
charges in respect of a property forming part of an industrial layout approved
before 05.08.1975. In view of the specific exemption contained in
G.O.Ms.No.743, the answer has to be in the negative.
14. The object and effect of the Government Order cannot be defeated by
applying the modified OSR requirements to layouts which have been expressly
exempted from their operation. Any such interpretation would render the
exemption granted by the Government otiose. Therefore, the demand for OSR
charges in respect of the subject property is contrary to the specific directions
contained in G.O.Ms.No.743, dated 10.05.1979, and cannot be sustained.
15. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered view
that the demand of Rs.75 lakhs towards OSR charges, contained in Sl.No.5 of
the impugned Advice Memo dated 20.09.2019, is unsustainable and is liable to
be set aside.
16. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned Advice
Memo dated 20.09.2019, issued in Letter No.C3/(S)/15493/2019, is quashed
insofar as it relates to the demand of OSR charges under Sl.No.5 in respect of
the subject property. The second respondent is directed to refund the sum of
Rs.75 lakhs collected from the petitioner towards OSR charges. The said
exercise shall be completed within a period of twelve (12) weeks from the date
of receipt of a copy of this order. In the event of default, the said amount shall
__________
Page9 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 05:17:35 pm )

WP No. 7490 of 2021
carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of default till actual
payment. 
17. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. There
shall be no order as to costs.
03-11-2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
ak
To
1. The Secretary to Government, Housing and
Urban Development Department, Fort,St
George,Chennai-9.
2. Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority
Rep by its member Secretary, Thalamuthu
Natarajan Maligai, No.1,Gandhi Irwin Road,
Chennai- 600 008.
__________
Page10 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 05:17:35 pm )

WP No. 7490 of 2021
HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR, J.
AK
WP No. 7490 of 2021
03-11-2026
__________
Page11 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 05:17:35 pm )