Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Case Number | C.A. No.-003051-003051 – 2015 |
| Diary Number | 14121/2012 |
| Judge Name | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR |
| Bench |
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPUL M. PANCHOLI |
| Precedent Value | Binding authority |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms |
| Type of Law | Planning and land-development law (Development Regulations) |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi |
The Court held that the chain of registered partition and gift deeds of 1949, 1972, 1973, together with issuance of separate pattas before 05 August 1975, conclusively established a lawful sub-division. Consequently, the 2,229 sqm site qualified for the Nil-OSR slab under Annexure XX. The appellant failed to prove post-1975 subdivision, shifting to it the burden of rebuttal. Concurrent findings based on public documents were held non-perverse, barring reappreciation under Article 136. Since no layout was formed, Regulation 29 did not apply. |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
A 21-ground estate was partitioned in 1949; gift deeds in 1972 and 1973 conveyed 11 grounds to one heir, evidenced by separate pattas. A further gift in 1984 left 10 grounds (2,275 sq ft). In 2008 a sale deed conveyed this parcel (≈2,229 sqm) to the purchaser. CMDA demanded ₹1.64 crore as OSR in 2009; deposit made under protest; High Court quashed levy and directed refund. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Registered family conveyances and separate pattas issued before a Master Plan cutoff date conclusively establish lawful sub-division for planning purposes.
- Annexure XX’s exemption for the first 3,000 sqm applies even if the original parent holding exceeded that threshold.
- Once the developer produces pre-regulation instruments, the authority bears the burden to disprove lawful sub-division.
- Concurrent factual findings based on public records are immune from appellate reappreciation absent perversity.
- Regulation 29 (layouts) is not triggered where the applicant simply seeks development permission for an existing parcel.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- Documentary Chain: Partition deed (1949) + gift deeds (1972, 1973) + separate pattas pre-1975 demonstrate an independent parcel of 11 grounds.
- Further Transfer: Gift of 125 sq ft in 1984 left 10 grounds and 2,275 sq ft, sold in 2008 via registered deed.
- Burden of Proof: After primary documents, CMDA had to show the sub-division was not recognised before 1975; it did not.
- Regulation Interpretation: Annexure XX clearly exempts sites up to 3,000 sqm; the 2,229 sqm site falls within the Nil-OSR slab.
- Article 136 Standard: No manifest illegality or perversity in concurrent findings; appellate interference unwarranted.
- Regulation 29 Inapplicable: No layout formation; only hospital construction was proposed.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (CMDA)
- The 2008 purchase was a fresh sub-division of a 21-ground parent estate, attracting Regulation 29.
- Annexure XX exemption is unavailable because the parent holding exceeded 3,000 sqm.
- Pattas and private family arrangements cannot substitute statutory subdivision approval for OSR calculation.
Respondent
- The chain of partition and gift deeds (1949–1973), plus separate pattas, proved pre-1975 subdivision.
- The site (2,229 sqm) falls within the Nil-OSR slab under Annexure XX.
- No layout was formed; only permission for hospital construction was sought.
Factual Background
A 21-ground property in Nungambakkam was partitioned in 1949. Successive gift deeds in 1972 and 1973 conveyed 11 grounds to one heir, evidenced by separate pattas issued before the First Master Plan (1975). A further gift in 1984 reduced it to 10 grounds and 2,275 sq ft, sold in February 2008. In January 2009, the purchaser applied for planning permission; CMDA demanded ₹1.64 crore as Open Space Reservation charges in October 2009. The purchaser deposited the sum under protest and, by July 2010, the Madras High Court quashed the levy and ordered a refund; the Division Bench affirmed in December 2011. CMDA’s appeal was dismissed.
Statutory Analysis
- Regulation 26(2) of the Development Regulations originally restricted permissions; G.O.Ms. No. 84/2009 exempted the site from that bar.
- Regulation 29 applies to layout promoters but was not triggered here.
- Annexure XX provides: “for the first 3000 square metres – Nil” OSR.
- Article 136 of the Constitution limits interference in concurrent findings to cases of manifest illegality or perversity.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed