Summary
The revised Premium FSI demand was upheld because planning permission had not been granted when the new rates commenced; prior application, conditional approval and payment created no vested right to the earlier rate. The additional infrastructure and amenities demand remained quashed: the prescribed rules had not been amended as contemplated, and the authority’s own circular protected applications whose development-charge advice predated the revision. The two categories of charges therefore produced different outcomes.
Issues
- Whether prepayment and conditional steps toward permission fixed the earlier Premium FSI rate.
- Whether revised infrastructure and amenities charges could be enforced under the rules and applicable circular.
Provisions considered
- Sections 48, 49 and 63B, Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971Requires planning permission before development and regulates the timing and prescribed framework of infrastructure and amenities charges. (¶¶ 13, 20, 23–24)
- Regulation 36, Second Master Plan for Chennai Metropolitan Area, Development RegulationsMakes Premium FSI charges incident to the permission granting additional floor space; the rate effective when permission was granted applied. (¶¶ 16–17, 22–26)
- Rules 4 and 5(2), Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning (Levy of Infrastructure and Amenities Charges) Rules, 2008Rate fixation remained subject to prescribed minimum and maximum limits, and an executive proposal could not simply displace the rules. (¶¶ 14–15, 19–20)
Held
- Conditional State approval was not the planning authority’s final permission. The demand letter expressly stated that prepayment did not confer permission and that refund would follow refusal. No vested right to the old Premium FSI rate arose. (¶¶ 18, 22–24)
- The applicable Premium FSI rate was the rate in force when permission was granted. The pending application and earlier payments did not shield the developer from the revision effective on 1 April 2012. (¶ 24–26)
- Infrastructure and amenities rates had to comply with the statutory and rule framework. The Government’s proposal to eliminate the prescribed ranges contemplated rule amendments which had not occurred; subordinate provisions also had to remain consistent with the parent Act. (¶ 19–20)
- Independently, the authority’s circular retained the old infrastructure and amenities rate where development-charge advice preceded 28 March 2012. This developer’s advice was dated 27 March, so the authority was bound by its own stated treatment. (¶ 21)
Result
Appeals partly allowed. High Court’s quashing of the revised Premium FSI demand set aside and that demand held enforceable. Quashing of the additional infrastructure and amenities demand maintained. No costs.