Whether town planning department can recover development charges from builders if they fail to carry out development work?

  Apart from that, it has been brought to the notice of the Commission during the hearing that the developers have to get their license renewed every five years commencing from the date of grant of license and pay renewal fee on each occasion. Such fee has to be paid even if the reason for which the project is pending is non-completion of external development work by the OPs. This means that the developers who have been granted license in 2014 would have to pay the renewal fee in 2019 mandatorily if the External Development Works remain pending owing to the complacency of the OPs. {Para 21}

22. The Commission is of the view that the interest of the developers in this regard can be protected through appropriate directions; whereas, in the absence of intervention by the Commission at this stage, neither can the extant position be restored at a later stage nor the likely damages to the developers and the consumers be compensated. Thus, in the given facts and circumstances, the Commission finds that the balance of convenience lies in granting the interim relief as sought by the Informant. It has been observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Zenit Mataplast P.Ltd vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors (2009) 10 SCC 388:

“Interim order is passed on the basis of prima facie findings, which are tentative. Such order is passed as a temporary arrangement to preserve the status quo till the matter is decided finally, to ensure that the matter does not become either infructuous or a fait accompli before the final hearing. The object of the interlocutory injunction is, to protect the plaintiff against injury by violation of his right for which he could not be adequately compensated in damages recoverable in the action if the uncertainty were resolved in his favour at the trial.”

23. In light of the factual situation as discussed in the preceding paras, the case in hand appears to be exceptional in nature, which merits intervention by the Commission. The Commission notes that the investigation in the present matter is likely to take some time. In the meanwhile, the members of the Informant could suffer irreparable harm by way of cancellation of licenses and levying of penal interest despite the OPs being at fault. The Informant has placed on record the fact that the OPs are not discharging their obligation under the agreement and yet have issued several notices to the developers for want of payment of due EDC amount, wherein it is stated that default by the developers would render their license null and void. Thus, the Commission finds it appropriate and necessary to intervene at this stage to safeguard the members of the Informant against the irreparable and irretrievable losses that may be caused to them.

COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA

Case No. 40 of 2017

In re:

Confederation of Real Estate Developers

Association of India-NCR (CREDAI-NCR) Vs  Department of Town and Country Planning, Government of Haryana …OP-1

Haryana Urban Development Authority …OP-2

CORAM

Mr. Sudhir Mital

Chairperson

Mr. U. C. Nahta

Member

Justice G. P. Mittal

Member

Dated:  01.08.2018

Order under Section 33 of the Competition Act, 2002

Print Page

Whether Municipal Corporation can recover property tax if it has refused to give development permission for development of property?

 In so far as the levy of taxes is concerned, Sections 128 and 129 of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, which governs the present Municipal Corporation, would reveal that the

recovery of municipal taxes has to be done after following the procedure prescribed therein. Nothing has been brought on record by the Municipal Corporation to point out that before the recovery of such taxes, assessment was done as required under the provision of Section 129 of the said Act, or as to whether any Bill or notice of demand as required under Section 128 of the B.P.M.C. Act was served on the petitioner. In that view of the matter, the levy of said taxes was also unsustainable in law.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH ATAURANGABAD

WRIT PETITION NO. 2395 of 2006

 Abhikesh Omprakash Agrawal Vs  The State of Maharahtra

CORAM : B.R. GAVAI &

N.D.DESHPANDE,JJ.

DATE : 26th August, 2009.

ORAL JUDGMENT :-[per B.R. Gavai,J.}

Print Page

When court should not allow deduction for development charges from compensation granted for land acquisition?

 In the case of "C.R. Nagaraja Shetty Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer and Estate Officer" (supra), "Special Tahsildar Vs. Abdul Reguman" and "Bhagwathulla Samanna Vs. Special Tahsildar" (supra), it is held that where deductions by way of development charges are permissible, the Court has to take into account the purpose of acquisition and the need of development. In the case at hand, the certificates (Exhs. 17 and 18) issued by Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation show that the land of claimants are acquired for submersions for Katpur Dam (Minor Irrigation). Thus, it is clear that the land of the claimants was not acquired for residential building or for other similar purpose. On the other hand, as the land was acquired for submersions, the acquired land would remain below the dam water. Therefore, the question of development of acquired land for the purpose of acquisition does not arise. On the other hand, considering the purpose of acquisition, I have no hesitation to hold that as the acquired land needs no further development, no amount can be deducted from the market value of the acquired land towards development charges. 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (AURANGABAD BENCH)

First Appeal No. 1094 of 2002 and X-Objen. No. (ST.) 5895 of 2013

Decided On: 04.06.2019

 The State of Maharashtra  Vs. Srikant Tamanappa Udge and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Sunil K. Kotwal, J.

Citation: 2020(1) MHLJ 53

Print Page