The Madras High Court has upheld the constitutional validity of Sections 63B and 63C of the TN Town & Country Planning Act, 1971, (TCP Act) and the statutory rules known as TN Town & Country Planning (Levy of Infrastructure & Amenities Charges) Rules, 2008.

The writ petitioners in all the cases concerned were either promoters, realtors, property developers, public limited companies or charitable educational trusts.

Mr Justice K. Chandru, who heard these petitions, ruled inter alia in his 80-page order delivered on June 30, 2011, that the challenge made to the vires of the Act must necessarily fail. “The Act is very much within the legislative competence of the State,” the Judge held.

The first ground of attack made by the petitioners was that the object of TCP Act was only for planning, development and use of rural and urban land in the State. Any amendment must serve the object for which the Act was enacted. The present amendment was totally out of context with the provisions of the law, they alleged. Power to levy development charges was already found under Section 59 and also the relevant laws related to the local bodies for collection of charges. There was no further requirement to collect infrastructure and amenities charges separately, the petitioners said.

As builders were already paying for development, in terms of Section 59, further collection in other names but essentially for the same purpose would amount to double levy, and is not authorised by relevant legislative entry, the petitioners contended.

In respect of charitable trusts running educational institutions, the petitioners said, the buildings should not be treated as commercial as the trusts were imparting education. The trusts should be given exemption from the levy, they added.

Countering the contentions of the petitioners, the Government Pleader submitted that the preamble to the Act and object and reasons set out in the amendment were clear guidelines for levy of Infrastructure and Amenities (IAA) charges. The present levy was on account of infrastructure and amenities and creation of special fund.

The Judge observed that the Supreme Court had in M. Chandru vs Member-Secretary, CMDA [reported in (2009) 4 SCC 72], upheld that the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority could be asked to collect IAA charges and that such delegation was permissible.

Though in two writ petitions the challenge was to Sec 59, that question was no longer res integra and the legality of the said section was upheld up the Division Bench of this Court in M Chandru vs Member Secretary, CMDA [reported in 2007 (1) CTC 353]. Subsequent to the appeal to the apex court, that view was upheld by that court.

The challenge to GO Ms No 191 dated June 1, 2007, and GO Ms No 215 dated July, 2, 2007, did not stand to reason, the Judge ruled. Even otherwise, by subsequent validating legislation, those provisions were still valid, and the writ petitions in this regard must necessarily be rejected, the Court said.

Referring to a petition from a charitable educational trust challenging the cancellation of a planning permission dated June 14, 2010, for non-payment of IAA charges and another petition challenging the order of local planning authority dated April 15, 2010, the Judge said that the writ petition was dismissed and hence this writ petition would also stand dismissed.

The Judge also referred to other petitions and held that all these petitions would stand dismissed.

Related Topics