01Facts
The petitioner applied for planning permission to construct an IT Park on property in the SIDCO Thiru-Vi-Ka Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai.
pp. 2–4In a demand dated 20 September 2019, the respondents required payment of premium FSI charges, among other charges. The petitioner paid ₹1,08,50,000 towards premium FSI charges under protest and challenged both the demand and G.O.Ms.No.170 dated 11 December 2018, which amended Regulation 35(3) of the Development Regulations. It sought a refund with interest.
pp. 2–402Issues
i.Whether the benefit under Regulation 24(4)(b), read with Annexure XIII, is confined to properties within the IT Corridor or extends to eligible IT Park developments in other specified use zones, including the industrial use zone.
p. 5 · ¶ 8(i)ii.Whether G.O.Ms.No.170 dated 11 December 2018, insofar as it affects the benefit under Regulation 35(3), was legally sustainable.
p. 5 · ¶ 8(ii)iii.Whether the premium FSI demand and the respondents’ retention of the amount paid could be sustained.
p. 5 · ¶ 8(iii)03Law Applied
Regulation 24(4)(b) addresses the permissibility of IT developments in the IT Corridor, while Annexure XIII prescribes conditions and concessions for IT Park developments in specified use zones, including the industrial use zone; these provisions must be read harmoniously.
pp. 6–7 · ¶ 10–15Regulation 35(3) governed the relevant benefit for qualifying IT Park developments.
p. 9 · ¶ 22–23Sections 123 and 124 of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971, provide the statutory framework for making rules and regulations, including requirements concerning publication and the making of regulations with prior Government approval.
p. 9 · ¶ 22–23The Court held that an amendment made without compliance with the applicable statutory procedure is inoperative.
p. 10 · ¶ 24Provisions in the judgment · 2
Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 Section 123Section 124
04Reasoning
Annexure XIII expressly includes the industrial use zone among the zones for IT Park development. Limiting its concessions to the IT Corridor would deprive those express references of effect; therefore, the petitioner could not be excluded solely because its property was outside that corridor.
pp. 6–8 · ¶ 12–18The State did not dispute that the impugned amendment had neither been published in the Official Gazette nor placed before the Legislative Assembly. The Court accordingly held the amendment inoperative for non-compliance with the statutory procedure.
pp. 9–10 · ¶ 23–24Since the premium FSI demand rested on that amendment, the demand could not stand, and the amount paid under protest could not be retained, subject to verification that it had not already been refunded or adjusted.
pp. 10–11 · ¶ 26–2805Holding
The writ petition was allowed. G.O.Ms.No.170 was set aside insofar as it discontinued the benefit under Regulation 35(3) without compliance with the applicable statutory procedure, and the premium FSI demand dated 20 September 2019, Item No. 8, was set aside to the extent it concerned the petitioner’s proposed IT Park.
p. 12 · ¶ 30(i)–(ii)The respondents were directed to refund ₹1,08,50,000, subject to the stated verification, within eight weeks; interest at 6% per annum is payable only if the refund is delayed beyond that period.
p. 12 · ¶ 30(iii)No other charges were affected, and there was no order as to costs.
pp. 11–12 · ¶ 28–30Original Court PDF
M/s.Camp Tech LLPvsThe State of Tamil Nadu
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
