Dismissed

M/S.Somasimara Realters (P) v. State of Tamilnadu

Madras HC3 Jul 2023WP/20249/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In W.P.No.20249 of 2010, the Madras High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the constitutionality of amendments to Section 63B and 63C regarding infrastructure charges. The court held that since a Division Bench had already negated the challenge to similar rules in Manikandan, the present petition also stood dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition and Monition Petition No.1 of 2010 were dismissed without order as to costs.

M/S.Somasimara Realters (P) Vs State of Tamilnadu — Land Acquisition | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

W.P.No.20249 of 2010

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 03.07.2023

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.SANJAY V.GANGAPURWALA, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.D.AUDIKESAVALU

¶8

W.P.No.20249 of 2010

¶9

M/s. Somasimara Realtors (P) Ltd. No.17/35, Second Main Road Adayar, Chennai 600 020.

¶10

.. Petitioner

¶11

Vs.

¶12

The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Secretary to Government Housing & Urban Development Department Chennai 600 009.

¶13

The Member Secretary Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority Thalamuthu Natarajan Building No.1, Gandhi Irwin Road Chennai 600 008.

¶14

.. Respondents

¶15

Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of Declaration to declare the amended provisions of 63B and 63C of Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 authorising to levy collection of Infrastructure and Amenities charges as untra vires to the Constitution and forbearing the respondents from levying or collecting infrastructure and amenities charges.

¶16

Page 1 of 4

¶17

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶18

W.P.No.20249 of 2010

¶19

For the Petitioner : Mr.S.Vaitheeswari For Mr.S.Sundaresan For the Respondents : Mrs.R.Anitha Special Government Pleader for Respondent-1

¶20

Mrs.P.Veena Suresh for Respondent-2

¶21

ORDER

¶22

(Made by the Hon'ble Chief Justice)

¶23

Heard Ms.S.Vaitheeswari, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mrs.R.Anitha, learned Special Government Pleader for the first respondent and Mrs.P.Veena Suresh, learned counsel for the second respondent.

¶24

Learned counsel for the second respondent submits that the challenge made in this writ petition to the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning (Levy of Infrastructure and Amenities Charges) Rules, 2008 has been negatived by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of D.Manikandan v. State of Tamil Nadu [2013 (5) CTC

¶25

494] .

¶26

Page 2 of 4

¶27

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶28

W.P.No.20249 of 2010

¶29

In the light of that, the present writ petition also stands dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. Consequently, M.P.No.1 of 2010 is also dismissed.

¶30

(S.V.G., CJ.) (P.D.A., J.) 03.07.2023 Index : Yes/No Neutral Citation : Yes/No

¶31

kpl

¶32

¶33