Concurrent Findings On Pre‑1975 Sub‑division Upheld; OSR Demand Quashed And Refund Confirmed

A bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and N.V. Anjaria heard an appeal by the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority challenging concurrent High Court judgments that set aside a demand for Open Space Reservation (OSR) charges and directed refund of the amount deposited by a purchaser for development permission. The primary issue related to whether the respondent’s site constituted an independent holding prior to the coming into force of development regulations on 05 August 1975, and whether the exemption in Annexure XX applied.

The Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the orders below, holding that contemporaneous registered deeds and revenue pattas established that the land was lawfully sub‑divided before 1975 and that the respondent’s site fell within the exempt slab for OSR. The Court emphasised that once the respondent produced the documentary chain of title and pattas, the evidentiary burden shifted to the Authority, which failed to discharge it. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "Once this series of registered deeds and pattas were produced and the initial evidentiary burden was discharged, same shifted to the appellant–Authority to establish that, notwithstanding these instruments, the property was not lawfully sub‑divided prior to 05 August 1975. This burden has not been discharged. No material has been placed to show that the pattas were procured post‑1975, nor is there any evidence that the sub‑division lacked recognition under planning law as it then stood. The appellant’s bald assertion that sub‑division occurred in 2008 is a mere ipse dixit, devoid of proof, and cannot prevail over contemporaneous registered instruments whose authenticity is not in dispute. The High Court was right in relying upon these materials to hold that the sub‑division existed prior to 1975 and same cannot be faulted. To disturb such a finding would amount to reappreciation of evidence, which this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 136 will not ordinarily undertake, particularly where the findings are concurrent, supported by public documents, and findings suffer from no perversity." The Court also noted that Annexure XX provided that "for the first 3000 square metres — Nil," and the respondent’s plot measured 2,229 square metres.

Background The dispute arose from a demand dated 30 October 2009 by the appellant‑Authority for ₹1,64,50,000 as OSR in lieu of land after the respondent purchased approximately 10 grounds and 2,275 sq. ft. (about 2,229 sq. m.) in 2008 to develop a super‑speciality hospital. The respondent contended that the purchased parcel formed part of an 11‑ground holding lawfully carved out by registered gift deeds of 1972 and 1973 and recognised by separate pattas issued well before the First Master Plan of 05 August 1975; a small portion of 125 sq. ft. had been gifted away in 1984. CMDA argued that the original estate measured 21 grounds and that the 2008 sale constituted a fresh sub‑division attracting Regulation 29 and disallowing the Annexure XX exemption.

To expedite development permissions, the respondent deposited the demanded sum under protest on 06 April 2010 and moved the High Court under Article 226. The Single Judge quashed the levy and directed refund with interest; the Division Bench of the Madras High Court affirmed on 21 December 2011. On appeal under Article 136, this Court examined the chain of registered instruments, revenue records and the text of the Development Regulations. It held that the documentary record established an independent holding before 1975, that the Authority had not rebutted this evidence, and that the site fell within the "Nil" slab of Annexure XX. The Court declined to reappreciate concurrent findings of fact and observed that interference was not warranted in absence of manifest illegality or perversity. The appeal was dismissed; the High Court’s direction to refund ₹1,64,50,000 with interest at 8% per annum was affirmed and the appellant was directed to pay the sum, to the extent not complied with, within six weeks. There was no order as to costs and all pending applications were disposed.

Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL NO.3051 OF 2015 Case Title: Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority v. Dr. Kamala Selvaraj Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Shri Balaji Subramaniam, Advocate For the Respondent(s): Shri Vikas Mehta, Advocate