Open Space Reservation levy quashed: SC upholds refund to Dr. Kamala Selvaraj; sub-division pre-1975 and site under 3,000 sq m exempt
Case name: Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority v. Dr. Kamala Selvaraj
Date of Order: 08 October 2025
Citation: 2025 INSC 1200; Civil Appeal No. 3051 of 2015
Bench: Aravind Kumar, J.; N.V. Anjaria, J.
Held: Open Space Reservation (OSR) charges demanded by CMDA were unsustainable. The respondent’s plot was a lawfully recognized sub-division long before 05.08.1975 and, being only about 2,229 sq m, fell within the “Nil” slab for the first 3,000 sq m under Annexure XX of the Development Regulations. The High Court’s direction to refund ₹1,64,50,000 with 8% interest was affirmed.
Summary: The property traces back to a 1949 partition in the Ispahani family, followed by two registered gifts in 1972 and 1973 through which Syed Ali Ispahani came to hold 11 grounds, with separate pattas issued in his name well before the First Master Plan took effect in August 1975. After a small 1984 gift of 125 sq ft, he retained 10 grounds and 2,275 sq ft, which he sold in 2008 to the respondent, a doctor proposing a super-speciality hospital. When planning permission was sought in 2009, the State granted exemption from Regulation 26(2) (G.O.Ms. No. 84, 02.06.2009), yet CMDA demanded ₹1.645 crore as OSR “in lieu of land.” The respondent paid under protest, pointed out that her site measured only ~2,229 sq m and was therefore exempt under Annexure XX, and approached the High Court. Both the Single Judge and the Division Bench agreed that the levy was illegal and ordered refund with interest. Dismissing CMDA’s appeal, the Supreme Court held that the documentary chain—registered gifts and separate pattas established a pre-1975 sub-division; CMDA’s contrary claim that sub-division occurred only in 2008 was a bare assertion unsupported by evidence. The Court rejected the attempt to notionally recombine the respondent’s site with the historical 21-ground estate to cross the 3,000-sq-m threshold, emphasized that the respondent had not formed any layout to attract layout-specific provisions, and declined to reappreciate well-reasoned concurrent findings absent perversity under Article 136.
Decision: Appeal dismissed. Refund of ₹1,64,50,000 with 8% p.a. interest if not already paid must be made within six weeks. No order as to costs; pending applications disposed.