LexStreak
Read free →
Madras High Court· 21 September 2026

Is the alternative of paying guideline value under rule 41(1) of the Tamil Nadu Combined Development and Building Rules, 2019 available where one integrated development is divided into successive layouts?

K.Alamelu v. The State of Tamil Nadu
WP(MD).26931/2026 · 2026:MHC:3903 · WP(MD) NO. 26931 of 2026
Coram: Justice L.Victoria Gowri
🔖 Save this judgment🔔 Follow r.41(1) Tamil Nadu Combined Deve…📬 Get today's judgments
View the original judgment PDFFree to read. To download it — or the LexStreak typeset copy with the headnote and Points of Law — create an account; downloads are part of the Pro plan.
Answer

The alternative of paying guideline value under rule 41(1) is not available where one integrated development is divided into successive layouts.

No. The alternative of paying guideline value under rule 41(1) is not available where one integrated development is divided into successive layouts. The Rules create three bands: nil reservation up to 3,000 square metres, ten per cent reservation between 3,000 and 10,000 square metres with payment of guideline value permitted as an alternative, and obligatory physical reservation above 10,000 square metres with monetary substitution expressly prohibited. The expression “in the alternative” confers a real choice only where the development genuinely falls within the middle band, because a construction permitting an owner to divide one integrated development into several paper layouts, each beneath the threshold, would erase the third band from practical operation. (¶29, 30)

Headnote

Tamil Nadu Combined Development and Building Rules, 2019 — r.41(1) — r.47(6) — Constitution of India — Art.300-A — Open space to be reserved (OSR) — Guideline value in lieu — Aggregation of adjoining extents — Tamil Nadu Combined Development and Building Rules, 2019 — r.41(1) — OSR land — Fragmented layouts read together — Held: The alternative of paying guideline value is available only where the development genuinely falls within the band between 3,000 and 10,000 square metres, and not where one integrated development is divided into successive paper layouts. (¶30) Tamil Nadu Combined Development and Building Rules, 2019 — r.47(6) — Composite development — Connecting factors must be identified — Held further: Common ownership alone does not authorise aggregation; the authority must identify contiguity, common acquisition, unity of access or design, temporal proximity or a sequence revealing fragmentation before treating two parcels as one development. (¶31, 32) Tamil Nadu Combined Development and Building Rules, 2019 — r.41(1)(c) — Administrative instructions — Monetary alternative not enlarged — Held further: Administrative instructions may guide delegation, valuation and implementation, but cannot enlarge the monetary alternative beyond the class of developments to which the Rules make it available. (¶36) Constitution of India — Art.300-A — Right to property — Statutory condition of development permission — Held further: Open space required to be reserved by duly framed statutory Rules is a lawful condition of development permission and not deprivation of property without authority of law. Writ petition dismissed. (¶41, 47)

Headnote

You've used your free headnotes this month

The answer above and the Court's own paragraphs stay free. LexStreak's full headnote on this judgment needs an account — a free one opens it again.

Create my free account
In the Court's own words
Paragraph 29The Rules create three distinct bands. Up to 3,000 square metres, reservation is nil. Between 3,000 and 10,000 square metres, 10% reservation is prescribed, but payment of guideline value of the equivalent land is permitted as an alternative, subject to exclusion of the first 3,000 square metres. Above 10,000 square metres, physical reservation becomes obligatory and monetary substitution is expressly prohibited.
Paragraph 30The expression “in the alternative” confers a real choice only where the development genuinely falls within the middle band. It cannot be read as permitting an owner to divide one integrated development into several paper layouts, each beneath the threshold, because such a construction would erase the third band from practical operation. A statutory provision must be construed so that each part retains meaning and the object of the scheme is advanced rather than defeated.
Acts & Sections
r.41(1) Tamil Nadu Combined Development and Building Rules, 2019r.47(6) Tamil Nadu Combined Development and Building Rules, 2019Art.300-A Constitution of IndiaArt.14 Constitution of India

One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.

Read the full text of K.Alamelu v. The State of Tamil Nadu — and get the Madras High Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.

Create my free account

Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India

Open the full judgment →

Also decided in this judgment
Does common ownership of two parcels by itself authorise a planning authority to aggregate them into one development?Can an administrative circular enlarge the monetary alternative beyond the class of developments to which the Tamil Nadu Combined Development and Building Rules, 2019 make it available?Is open space reservation required by duly framed statutory Rules deprivation of property without authority of law under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India?
Plain-language answer prepared by the LexStreak Editorial Desk — verify against the judgment. Source: Madras High Court. Corrections