A. BALARAMAN AND ORS. Vs. MADRAS METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY REPRESENTED BY THE MEMBER SECRETARY, THALAMUTHU NATARAJAN AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is for a declaration to declare Rule 19(b)II Group Development VI of the Development Control Rules framed under the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act 1971 as null and void.

(2.) THE petitioners are owners of vacant land measuring 27 grounds in T.S.No.1,3,5, and 6 Block Nos.24, 25 Jeevarathanam Nagar, Urur Village. In order to develop the land by putting up a multistoried building, the petitioners submitted a plan to the respondents for planning permission to construct a multistoried building consisting of five blocks with ground plus four floors for residential purpose. On the petitioners' application the Government granted exemption under Section 113 of the Town and Country Planning Act from the provisions of Rules 17 of the Development Control Rules in respect of the proposed construction. After getting exemption under G.O.176 (Housing and Urban Development Department) dated 20.1.89, the petitioners filed an application with the plan for planning permission to the first respondent. The first respondent by communication in Letter No.1/1435/89 dated 21.7.1989 asked petitioners to remit a sum of Rs. 56,200/ - towards the development charges, a sum of Rs.6,000/ - towards scrutiny charges and a sum of Rs.5,06,000/ -towards open space reservation charges and a sum of Rs. 10,01,000/ - towards security deposit within ten days from the date of receipt of that communication. The petitioners accordingly produced demand drafts for the abovesaid amounts excepting Rs. 10,01,000/ - and requested them to accept bank guarantee for the said amount of Rs.10,01,000/ -. It is alleged that the petitioners asked the first respondent to furnish basis for the open space reservation charges. The petitioners also stated that they informed the first respondent that the demand of open space reservation charges is high, arbitrary and unreasonable and hence correct charges may be levied. The first respondent refused to give the basis for the open space reservation charges and refused to accept the bank guarantee furnished towards security deposit. The first respondent also declined to receive the development charges and scrutiny charges unless the petitioners deposit all the amounts together. It is alleged in the affidavit that the action of the first respondent in refusing to accept the bank guarantee and also fixing the open space reservation charges at Rs.5,06,000/ - is arbitrary, illegal and without authority of law without any basis and violative of Articles 14,19, 19(1)(g) and 300 -A of the Constitution of India. It is alleged that the Rule 19(b) demanding the market value of the land equivalent to 10% reserve for open space is arbitrary and violative of the petitioners' right guaranteed under Article 14,19(1)(g) and 300 -A of the Constitution of India. The case of the petitioners in their affidavit is that there is no basis for fixing either the 10% or demand of market value from the petitioners. After referring to Rule 19(b)(ii), Group Development VI, the petitioners allege that the respondent could demand only the value as per the valuation of the registration department. In the present case, according to the petitioners, the value per ground as per the valuation of the registration department is Rs.1,00,000/ - and the value of 10% area in the present case would be rupees 1,25,000/ - and accordingly, the first respondent can ask for only a sum of Rs. 1,25,000/ - and the present demand is illegal. The contention of the petitioners is that the value of the land in Urur Village is Rs. 1,00,000/ -per ground and the demand on the part of the first respondent and the valuation arrived at by it, is arbitrary and is not correct.

(3.) MR . R. Janakiraman, learned Counsel for the petitioners referred to Section 19(b) of the Development Control Rules especially Rule 19(b)(i)(c) and contends that there is no specific provision for payment of open space charges and it is also stated that there is no power for the first respondent to ask for the value of Registration Department plus 20% of that value. It is stated by him that the petitioners are prepared to pay as per the valuation of the Registration Department but the demand of the value of the Registration Department plus 20% of that value is wholly arbitrary.