Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

11.It is submitted that massive developments are taking place all around the State and the Developers are not providing necessary infrastructure to the residents of the Townships that are being developed and the Government is forced to provide all necessary infrastructure for ensuring sustainable development and the financial commitment in this regard is substantial. Further, by relying upon the counter affidavit filed by the first respondent, it is contended that there is full justification to levy and collect I & A charges and the State Government is empowered to collect those charges and such charges have direct nexus to the object sought to be achieved. It is further submitted that the pith and substance of the impugned provision introduced by the Amending Act is for levy and collection of charges in the nature of fees for the provision of basic infrastructure amenities and to ensure sustainable development of urban areas. Reference in this regard was made to the Statement of objects and reasons of the Amending Act and the averments made in the counter affidavit. Further, it is submitted that the object of the levy of I & A charges is clear from the provisions of the Act, the Rules which defines the terms amenities and infrastructure and that the impost under Section 63-B is on the use or change of use of land or building or development of any land or building. It is submitted that the State Legislature derives legislative competence to enact Section 63-B and the power is traceable to Entries 5, 13, 17 & 66 of List II and Entries 20 and 47 of List III of VII Schedule as well as Article 243H and 243X of the Constitution. The learned counsel invited our attention to the findings rendered by the learned Single Judge in this regard. In support of his submissions reliance was placed on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Madurai K.K.Nagar Veetu Urimaiyalargal Pothu Nala Sangam v. Madurai City Municipal Corporation [2012 Writ LR 689] and the judgment of the Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court in Mewar Chamber of Commerce and Industry vs. Municipal Council, Bhilwara and another, [AIR 2002 Rajasthan 377]. It is further submitted that the impugned levy is not a multiple levy and the development charge imposed under Section 69 of the Act are utilised for the purposes mentioned under Section 67 of the Act, whereas the I & A charges levied under Section 63-B are credited into a State fund constituted by the Government under Section 63-C of the Act and utilised for the purposes spelt out in Rule 6 of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning State Infrastructure and Amenities Fund Rules. Therefore, it is submitted that there is no question of multiple levy. It is further submitted that the impugned enactment does not suffer from excessive and unguided delegation as there are sufficient guidelines under the Act which could be culled out from the various provisions, the preamble and statement of objects and reasons of the Amending Act. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Delhi Race Club vs. UOI [(2012) 8 SCC 680]. It is further submitted that the developers derive special advantage and there are special burden imposed on Municipal services and therefore, the levy of I & A charges is fully justified and a similar impost though in the nature of tax was upheld by the Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court in Mewar Chamber of Commerce and Industry vs. Municipal Council, Bhilwara and another, [AIR 2002 Rajasthan 377]. As regards the contention regarding quid pro quo, it is submitted that the traditional concept of the doctrine has undergone considerable transition and this aspect has been elaborately dealt by Writ Court by taking note of the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the said aspect. Reference was made to the averments in the counter affidavit explaining the manner in which the funds collected as I & A charges has been allocated/ utilised and it is submitted that these facts clearly demonstrate the existence of quid pro quo.

28. Question No.(ii) :-

The petitioners/appellants contended that all of them are paying development charges levied under Section 59 of the Act and simultaneous levy of I & A charges, apart from payment of water tax and sewerage tax in addition to development charges amounts to a multiple levy and therefore cannot be sustained. Section 59 deals with 'levy of development charges' by virtue of such provision every planning authority including a local authority shall levy development charges on the institution of use or change of use of land or building or development of any land or building for which permission is required under the Act. In M.Chandru vs. the Member Secretary CMDA, [2007 (1) CTC 353], the developers and builders challenged the levy of infrastructure and development charges on behalf of CMWSSB contending that the same is ultra vires, unconstitutional, arbitrary and unreasonable. The Division Bench of this Court after analysing the provisions of the CMWSSB Act and the Town and Country Planning Act held that the infrastructure development charges levied by CMWSSB is only for the service rendered and to strengthen and maintain the water supply and sewerage infrastructure. The Division Bench took note of the increasing population and sudden rise in building activities, the CMWSSB has to lay main lines to take water from various sources and sewer lines to take the drain water outside the habitation for which undoubtedly huge resources are required. Most importantly the Division Bench noticed that the claim of infrastructure development charge is not applicable to all buildings and it applies only to special and multi-storied buildings and in such circumstances held that it cannot be contended that the demand of infrastructure and development charge has no nexus to the main scheme of the Act. While upholding the said amendment to the CMWSSB Act, the Division Bench held as hereunder:-
2. In the process of development, private developers are playing key role and put in their efforts in the actual provision of industry construction and accessory developments like commercial, residential, recreational, etc., while they swing for the process of these sectors, they also derive appreciable gains in the process. The development requires high order infrastructure like international standard transport facilities, new source of water supply system, connecting sewerage and drainage to the trunk system, creation of environment friendly atmosphere at the local as well as regional level which require huge capital outlay. The concerned local bodies find it difficult to cater to the needs for infrastructure facilities even at the local level, even though the development provide outlets to the growth of the cities. In view of the above, some kind of institutional arrangement for mobilisation and provision of higher order infrastructure at the regional level is thought of. At present, developers develop properties without providing basic infrastructure. Under these circumstances, the user pay concept is one of the solutions for sustainable development. In these specific cases, major participation of developers in the provision of infrastructure is essential, as they derive the main benefit out of these developments. Hence, the Government, after detailed examination of the facts of the ground reality, has ordered in G.O.Ms.No.191, Housing and Urban Development [UD4(2)] Department, dated 01.06.2007 for the collection of infrastructure and basic amenities charges from the higher order developers.

(ii) The levy of Infrastructure and Development Charges as envisaged under Section 63-B of the Amending Act 2007 does not amount to a multiple levy, but a levy with a distinct purpose, object and intent as envisaged under the Amending Act, 2007.

(iii)The impugned provisions, namely Section 63-B and 63-C of the provisions of the Amending Act, its preamble, Statement of Objects and Reasons and the Rules namely the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning (Levy of Infrastructure and Amenities Charges) Rules, 2008 and Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning State Infrastructure and Amenities Fund Rules 2008 provides sufficient guidance to the delegate and does not suffer from any unguided or uncanalized power of excessive delegation.