Court upholds validity of Tamil Nadu planning laws, quashes exemptions, allows regularization fee.

The Court upheld the validity of Section 113 of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971, finding that it does not suffer from excessive delegation. However, the Court quashed 62 Government Orders granting exemptions under Section 113 due to being issued arbitrarily and illegally. Additionally, the Court upheld the validity of Section 113-A introduced by the Tamil Nadu Town and Planning (Amendment) Act, 1998, which aims to regularize unauthorized constructions in Chennai by collecting a regularization fee. The Court emphasized the need for preventive measures against unauthorized constructions and partly allowed both writ petitions with costs imposed on the parties.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Constitutional validity of Section 113 of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971.
2. Validity of the orders passed under Section 113 granting exemptions.
3. Validity of Section 113-A introduced by the Tamil Nadu Town and Planning (Amendment) Act, 1998.

Summary:

Issue 1: Constitutional Validity of Section 113
The petitioner challenged Section 113 of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971, as ultra vires of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner argued that Section 113 granted the Government unbridled and uncontrolled power to exempt any land or building from the provisions of the Act, which could lead to arbitrary and indiscriminate use of power. The Court, however, held that the power under Section 113 is controlled through the guidelines provided in the Preamble, Objects and Reasons, and various provisions of the Act and the Rules. The Court concluded that Section 113 does not suffer from the vice of excessive delegation and is valid.

Issue 2: Validity of Orders Passed Under Section 113
The petitioner highlighted that the Government issued 62 Government Orders (GOs) between 1.7.1987 and 29.1.1988, granting exemptions to buildings that violated the Development Control Rules. The Court found that these GOs were issued mechanically, without application of mind, and in total disregard of the rules relating to building restrictions. The Court observed that the Government exercised its power arbitrarily and illegally, without recording any reasons for the exemptions. Consequently, the Court quashed all 62 GOs as they were not sustainable in law.

Issue 3: Validity of Section 113-A
Section 113-A was introduced by the Tamil Nadu Town and Planning (Amendment) Act, 1998, to regularize buildings developed before the commencement of the amendment by collecting a regularization fee. The petitioner challenged this section as unconstitutional and against public interest. The Court, however, held that Section 113-A lays down clear guidelines and procedures for granting exemptions, unlike Section 113. The Court found that the legislative intent was to address the large number of unauthorized constructions in Chennai and regularize them by charging a fee. The Court upheld Section 113-A as a valid piece of legislation.

Conclusion:
(A) Section 113 of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971, is valid and does not suffer from excessive delegation.
(B) The 62 GOs granting exemptions under Section 113 are quashed.
(C) Section 113-A introduced by the Tamil Nadu Town and Planning (Amendment) Act, 1998, is valid.
(D) The situation highlighted in the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Amending Act requires serious consideration to prevent future occurrences.
(E) Effective measures should be taken to check unauthorized constructions at the nascent stage.

Both writ petitions are partly allowed, with costs on the parties.

---