M/s.Camp Tech LLP vs The State of Tamil Nadu
- Court
- Madras High Court
WP No. 7484 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 03-11-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
WP No. 7484 of 2021
And
WMP.No. 8007 of 2021
CNR: {HCMA010364632021}
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 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 05:17:35 pm )
WP No. 7484 of 2021
This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India,
praying for issuance of writ of certiorarified mandamus, calling for the records
comprised in G.O. Ms.No. 170 (Housing and Urban Development (UDI)
Department dated 11.12.2018) quash the same in so far as it deletes Regulation
35 (3) of the Development Regulation and the consequential order dated
20.09.2019 in SI. No.8 in so as it pertains the premium FSI Charges for the
property developed by the petitioner at plot No.25A and 25 B 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
nd
consequentially direct the 2 respondent to forthwith refund sum of
Rs.1,08,50,000/- paid by petitioner under protest towards premium FSI charges,
with interest at the rate of 12% p.a with effect from 18.10.2019.
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 present writ petition has been filed challenging G.O.Ms.No.170,
Housing and Urban Development (UDI) Department, dated 11.12.2018, insofar
as it relates to the deletion of Regulation 35(3) of the Development Regulations
__________
Page2 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 05:17:35 pm )
WP No. 7484 of 2021
for the Chennai Metropolitan Area. The petitioner also challenges the
consequential demand dated 20.09.2019, particularly Item No.8, requiring
payment of premium Floor Space Index (FSI) charges in respect of the property
situated at Plot Nos.25A and 25B, SIDCO Thiru-Vi-Ka Industrial Estate, South
Phase, 5th Cross Street, Guindy, Chennai. The petitioner seeks a consequential
direction to the second respondent to refund the sum of Rs.1,08,50,000/- paid
towards premium FSI charges under protest, together with interest.
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 communication
dated 20.09.2019, the third 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 FSI charges.
3. Mr. Satish Parasaran, learned Senior Advocate representing the
learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the demand for premium FSI
charges arises from G.O.Ms.No.170 dated 11.12.2018, by which the
__________
Page3 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 05:17:35 pm )
WP No. 7484 of 2021
Government sought to amend Regulation 35(3) of the Development Regulations
and discontinue the benefit available to IT developments. According to the
learned Senior Advocate, the amendment was made without following the
mandatory procedure contemplated under Sections 123 and 124 of the Tamil
Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971, and is therefore unsustainable in
law.
4. The learned Senior Advocate further submitted that Regulation 24(4)
(b), read with Annexure XIII of the Development Regulations, provides special
concessions for the development of IT Parks in specified use zones, including
the industrial use zone. According to him, the petitioner is entitled to the benefit
of the said provisions and, consequently, to an FSI of 3.375. It was therefore
contended that the demand for premium FSI charges is contrary to the
applicable Development Regulations.
5. Per contra, Mr. P.V. Balasubramanian, learned Additional Advocate
General appearing for the respondents, submitted that G.O.Ms.No.170 dated
11.12.2018 discontinued the premium FSI benefit by amending Regulation
35(3). Since the petitioner’s application for planning permission was submitted
when the said Government Order was in force, the petitioner is bound by its
provisions.
__________
Page4 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 05:17:35 pm )
WP No. 7484 of 2021
6. The learned Additional Advocate General further submitted that
Regulation 24(4)(b), read with Annexure XIII, applies only to properties
situated within the IT Corridor along Rajiv Gandhi Salai, formerly known as
Old Mahabalipuram Road. Since the petitioner’s property is situated in an
industrial estate and not within the IT Corridor, the petitioner cannot claim the
concession provided under the said provisions. He therefore contended that the
demand for premium FSI charges is valid and that the writ petition is liable to
be dismissed.
7. Heard the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner, the
learned Additional Advocate General and the learned State Counsel appearing
for the respondents. The materials placed on record have also been perused.
8. The following questions arise for consideration:
(i) Whether the benefit available under Regulation 24(4)(b), read with
Annexure XIII of the Development Regulations, is confined to
properties situated within the IT Corridor along Rajiv Gandhi Salai, or
whether it extends to eligible IT Park developments in other specified
use zones, including the industrial use zone.
(ii) Whether the amendment introduced by G.O.Ms.No.170 dated
11.12.2018, insofar as it affects the petitioner’s claim to the benefit
under Regulation 35(3), is legally sustainable.
(iii) Whether the demand for premium FSI charges dated 20.09.2019
and the consequential retention of the amount paid by the petitioner can
be sustained.
__________
Page5 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 05:17:35 pm )
WP No. 7484 of 2021
9. Before considering the rival submissions, it is necessary to examine the
relevant provisions of the Development Regulations.
10. Regulation 24 deals with areas and developments of a special
character. Regulation 24(4)(b) refers to the IT Corridor, which covers the area
extending to a depth of 500 metres on either side of Rajiv Gandhi Salai, from
Kottivakkam and Perungudi villages up to the Chennai Metropolitan Area
limits. The provision permits IT developments in that corridor, irrespective of
the zoning classification under the Master Plan or Detailed Development Plan,
subject to the conditions specified in Annexure XIII.
11. The respondents rely upon the reference to the IT Corridor in
Regulation 24(4)(b) to contend that the concessions under Annexure XIII are
available only to properties situated within that corridor. The petitioner, on the
other hand, contends that Annexure XIII expressly refers to several other use
zones and cannot be restricted to the IT Corridor alone.
12. On examining the relevant provisions, this Court finds that the scope
of Annexure XIII cannot be determined by reading Regulation 24(4)(b) in
isolation. The provisions must be read harmoniously, having regard to their
language and purpose.
13. Annexure XIII, which prescribes the rules for IT Park development,
refers to development in various use zones, including primary residential,
__________
Page6 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 05:17:35 pm )
WP No. 7484 of 2021
commercial, industrial, mixed residential, institutional and urbanisable use
zones, besides IT Corridor lands along Old Mahabalipuram Road. The inclusion
of the industrial use zone, among other specified zones, is important .
14. If the intention were to restrict the concessions under Annexure XIII
exclusively to properties situated within the IT Corridor, there would be no
apparent purpose in separately referring to the other use zones, including the
industrial use zone. Such an interpretation would render those references
ineffective. A provision must, as far as possible, be interpreted in a manner that
gives effect to all its parts.
15. Regulation 24(4)(b) specifically addresses the permissibility of IT
developments within the IT Corridor, notwithstanding the zoning classification
under the relevant planning documents. Annexure XIII, however, sets out the
conditions and concessions applicable to qualifying IT Park developments in the
use zones specified therein. The reference to the IT Corridor in Regulation
24(4)(b) cannot, by itself, be construed as excluding every other use zone
expressly mentioned in Annexure XIII.
16. Admittedly, the petitioner’s property is situated in an industrial estate
and not alongside Rajiv Gandhi Salai. However, that circumstance alone does
not dis-entitle the petitioner from claiming the benefit of Annexure XIII. The
relevant question is whether the proposed development falls within the
__________
Page7 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 05:17:35 pm )
WP No. 7484 of 2021
categories of IT Park development contemplated by the applicable provisions
and satisfies the prescribed conditions.
17. The respondents’ contention that the concessions are available only to
developments situated within the IT Corridor is therefore not acceptable. An
eligible IT Park development in an industrial use zone cannot be excluded
merely because the property does not fall within the geographical limits of the
IT Corridor, when Annexure XIII expressly recognises the industrial use zone.
18. It follows that the petitioner’s claim must be examined under the
provisions governing IT Park developments, including Regulation 35(3), as
applicable to the petitioner, and not rejected solely on the ground that the
property is situated in an industrial estate outside the IT Corridor.
19. The next question concerns the validity of G.O.Ms.No.170 dated
11.12.2018, insofar as it seeks to delete or discontinue the benefit available
under Regulation 35(3).
20. The Government’s power to amend Development Regulations must
be exercised in accordance with the governing statute. Where the statute
prescribes a procedure for making or amending regulations, compliance with
such procedure is essential to the validity of the amendment. The issuance of a
Government Order, by itself, does not validate an amendment made without
following the prescribed statutory procedure.
__________
Page8 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 05:17:35 pm )
WP No. 7484 of 2021
21. The petitioner specifically contends that the impugned amendment
was introduced without following the procedure contemplated under Sections
123 and 124 of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971.
22. Section 123(1) of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act,
1971, mandates publication of rules made under the Act in the Tamil Nadu
Government Gazette. Section 123(2) further requires every such rule to be
placed before the Legislative Assembly. Section 124(1) empowers a planning
authority, with the previous approval of the Government, to make regulations
consistent with the Act and the rules made there under. These provisions
prescribe the statutory framework governing the exercise of the power to make
rules and regulations under the Act.
23. In the present case, the petitioner contends that the amendment to
Regulation 35(3), which discontinues the benefit available to qualifying IT Park
developments, was neither published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette
nor placed before the Legislative Assembly. If the impugned amendment is in
the nature of a rule to which Section 123 applies, the failure to comply with the
mandatory requirements of publication and laying before the Legislative
Assembly would have to be considered in determining its validity. Equally, if
the amendment was made by exercising the power under Section 124, its
validity must be examined with reference to the requirements governing the
making and amendment of regulations under that provision.
__________
Page9 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 05:17:35 pm )
WP No. 7484 of 2021
24. The State is unable to dispute that the impugned amendment was
neither published in the Official Gazette nor placed before the Legislative
Assembly. In view of the non-compliance with the statutory procedure
contemplated under Sections 123 and 124 of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country
Planning Act, 1971, the impugned amendment is held to be inoperative.
25. The remaining question is whether the petitioner is entitled to a refund
of the premium FSI charges paid under protest.
26. The demand dated 20.09.2019 was made on the basis of the
regulatory position relied upon by the respondents. However, for the reasons
stated above, the respondents cannot deny the petitioner the benefit of the
applicable provisions merely because the property is situated in an industrial
estate outside the IT Corridor. Further, to the extent that the demand rests upon
the impugned amendment to Regulation 35(3), which is unsustainable for non-
compliance with the mandatory statutory procedure, the demand cannot be
allowed to stand.
27. The petitioner has paid a sum of Rs.1,08,50,000/- towards premium
FSI charges under protest and without prejudice to its rights. The payment was
made pursuant to the demand issued as a condition for the grant of planning
permission. Once the legal basis for the levy is found to be unsustainable, the
respondents cannot retain the amount merely because it was paid to secure the
processing of the planning application.
__________
Page10 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 05:17:35 pm )
WP No. 7484 of 2021
28. Consequently, the petitioner is entitled to a refund of Rs.1,08,50,000/-
towards premium FSI charges, subject to verification that the entire amount
claimed represents the levy impugned in the present writ petition and that no
part of it has already been refunded or adjusted. This direction shall not extend
to any other charge, including open space reservation charges, which is not the
subject matter of the present challenge.
29. As regards interest, the petitioner has sought interest on the amount to
be refunded. Having regard to the fact that the amount was collected under a
demand now found unsustainable, the respondents shall refund the principal
amount within the time stipulated below. In the circumstances of the case, this
Court is not inclined to grant interest in addition to the principal amount.
30. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is allowed in the following
terms:
(i) G.O.Ms.No.170, Housing and Urban Development (UDI)
Department, dated 11.12.2018, is set aside insofar as it seeks to
discontinue the benefit available to qualifying IT Park developments
under Regulation 35(3), without compliance with the mandatory
statutory procedure applicable to such an amendment.
__________
Page11 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 05:17:35 pm )
WP No. 7484 of 2021
(ii) The impugned demand dated 20.09.2019, in Item No.8, insofar as it
relates to the levy of premium FSI charges on the petitioner’s proposed
IT Park development, is set aside.
(iii) The respondents are directed to refund to the petitioner the sum of
Rs.1,08,50,000/- paid towards premium FSI charges under protest,
subject to the verification specified in paragraph 27 above, within a
period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In
the event of default, the said amount shall carry interest at the rate of
6% p.a. from the date of default till actual payment.
(iv). 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.
__________
Page12 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 05:17:35 pm )
WP No. 7484 of 2021
2. Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority
Rep by its member Secretary, Thalamuthu
Natarajan Maligai, No.1,Gandhi Irwin Road,
Chennai- 600 008.
__________
Page13 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 05:17:35 pm )
WP No. 7484 of 2021
HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR, J.
ak
W.P No. 7484 of 2021
03-11-2026
__________
Page14 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 05:17:35 pm )