Madras High Court
D.Rajan Dev vs The Director Of Town And Country ... on 13 September, 2022
WP.No.18359 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 13.09.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR
WP.No.18359 of 2022
and WMP.No.17717 of 2022
D.Rajan Dev ...petitioner
Vs.
1. The Director of Town and Country Planning,
Office of Directorate of Town and Country Planning,
Second, Third and Fourth Floors,
E & C Market Road,
Koyambedu, Chennai 600 107.
2. The Member-Secretary,
Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority,
Thalamuthu Natarajan Building,
No.1, Gandhi Irwin Road, Egmore,
Chennai 600 008. ...respondents
Prayer:- This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India, seeking for a Writ of Mandamus, directing the first respondent
to forthwith consider and dispose of the petitioner appeal against the
order of the second respondent dated 06.05.2022 in Order
No.C3/6476/2011.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/7
WP.No.18359 of 2022
For Petitioner : Mr.V.Anilkumar
For Respondents
for R1 : Mr.V.Jeevagiridharan,
Additional Government Pleader
for R2 : Mr.Bhuvaneshkumar, Standing Counsel
ORDER
This Writ Petition is filed for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus,
directing the first respondent to consider and dispose of the petitioner's
appeal against the order of the second respondent dated 06.05.2022.
2. The petitioner is engaged in the business of construction
under the name and style of M/s.Ben Foundation. The petitioner in order
to construct a residential-cum-shopping building in Survey Nos.223, 224
and 225 Padi Village, Padi Kuppam Road, Chennai submitted an
application seeking planning permission. Subsequently, he applied for
Premium FSI Scheme and the second respondent vide letter, dated
19.07.2012 called upon the petitioner to pay Rs.7,61,40,000/- as
premium FSI charges. The petitioner objected to the calculation and filed
WP.No.18238 of 2013 before this Court, which was dismissed, against
which, the petitioner preferred Writ Appeal before the Division Bench of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.No.18359 of 2022
this Court and the same was allowed. Being aggrieved, the second
respondent preferred a Special Leave Petition and the Apex Court, by
order dated 11.12.2019 reversed the judgment of the Division Bench. As
per the direction of the Apex Court, the above said premium FSI charges
were paid by the petitioner. However, the second respondent vide letter
dated 04.09.2020 demanded the petitioner to pay interest towards the
delayed payment. Subsequently, the second respondent without
considering his objections, passed the impugned oder dated 06.05.2022
directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.4,01,53,203/-.
3. The grievance of the petitioner is that as against the
impugned order, the petitioner filed an appeal dated 05.07.2022, before
the first respondent under Section 76(3)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Town and
Country Planning Act, 1971, but the same was not entertained stating
that they are not empowered to do so.
4. It is now brought to the notice of this Court that Section 76
of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act 1971 has been
amended vide Amendment Act 22 of 1974, wherein clause 16 of Section
9-D, provides for appeal provision to the Government as against the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.No.18359 of 2022
order of the Metropolitan Development authority. Section 76, as
amended is extracted hereunder:
"76. Appeal to “Government”.- (1) Any person
objecting to any decision or order taken or passed by the
Metropolitan Development Authority under the provisions
of Chapter VII of this Act may, within a period of two
months from the date on which the decision or order was
communicated to him in the manner prescribed, appeal
against such decision or order to “the Government”:
Provided that “the Government” may admit an
appeal preferred after the expiration of the said period “if
they are”satisfied that the appellant had sufficient cause for
not preferring the appeal within the said period:
Provided that “the Government” may admit an
appeal preferred after the expiration of the said period “if
they are” satisfied that the appellant had sufficient cause
for not preferring the appeal within the said period:
Provided further that no appeal shall be
entertained under this sub-section it is accompanied by
satisfactory proof of the payment of the development
charges admitted by the appellant to be due."
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.No.18359 of 2022
5. Considering the limited scope of the prayer sought for in this
Writ Petition, this Court, without expressing any opinion on the merits of
the matter, directs the first respondent to forward the petitioner's appeal
to the State Government. On such reference, the State Government shall
consider the petitioner's appeal and pass appropriate orders in accordance
with law, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a
copy of this order, after giving adequate opportunity to the petitioner.
6. It is to be noted that when the appeal is forwarded to the
State Government, the State Government shall treat the same as an
appeal by calculating the presentation of the appeal before the first
respondent as the relevant date for calculating the period of limitation.
7. With the above observations and directions, the Writ
Petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous
petition is closed.
13.09.2022
Index : Yes/No
pvs
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.No.18359 of 2022
To
1. The Director of Town and Country Planning,
Office of Directorate of Town and Country Planning,
Second, Third and Fourth Floors,
E & C Market Road,
Koyambedu, Chennai 600 107.
2. The Member-Secretary,
Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority,
Thalamuthu Natarajan Building,
No.1, Gandhi Irwin Road, Egmore,
Chennai 600 008.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.No.18359 of 2022
S.S.SUNDAR.J.,
pvs
WP.No.18359 of 2022
13.09.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
