KUMARAN Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE case of the petitioner is as follows: the petitioner is challenging the action of the second respondent/c. M. D. A. in demanding a sum of Rs. 95,50,000/- towards Open Space Reservation Charges as a precondition for grant of planning permit in respect of the proposed development of Commercial building in petitioner's land.

(2.) M/s. SALEM Murasu (P) Ltd. purchased an extent of 21 cents of lands from a former Maharaja of Travancore in Urur Village, Saidapet Taluk under a Deed of sale dt. 30. 04. 1985. The lands measuring an extent of 21 cents were part of a larger extent of land measuring 3 acres and 41 cents owned by the former maharaja Salem Murasu (P) Ltd. in 1986 applied for planning permission and building permit for a commercial building to be put up on the lands. The corporation of Chennai sanctioned the planning permission and building permit in march 1987 after collecting all necessary charges. Thereafter, a commercial building was constructed and the said lands of 27 cents together with the building was sold to one Mr. S. Balasubramanian under a sale deed dt. 19. 3. 1987. The petitioner purchased the above said property from the said Balasubramanian under a sale deed dt. 27. 03. 2000. In 2004, the petitioner submitted an application to the Corporation for demolition of the building as he proposed to put up stilt + 4 floors commercial building in the subject property. The corporation granted the permission for demolition on 26. 8. 2004 and the petitioner also obtained an approval for re-classification of the site as mixed residential use zone. Thereafter, he submitted an application for planning permission to the second respondent, but the second respondent by letter dt. 12. 12. 2008 called upon the petitioner to remit the charges mentioned therein within 30 days as a precondition for considering his application. Of the various charges mentioned in the letter dt. 12. 12. 2008, the petitioner is objecting to the demand of a sum of Rs. 95,50,000/- towards Open Space Reservation charges which according to him is illegal. As the representations sent by him in this regard were not considered positively, he has filed the above writ petition for the aforesaid relief.

(3.) THE second respondent entered appearance through their counsel and filed a counter affidavit opposing the writ petition.