It is well settled that no right accrues to an applicant until the application for approval is considered and sanctioned. The first respondent has given the proposal for revised building plan under Regulation 36 with a view to avail the benefit of Premium FSI. As pointed out earlier, the process of grant of Premium FSI is completed only after the grant of approval by the Government. Regulation 36 clearly provides that the Premium FSI shall be allowed in specific areas with the approval of the Government and the approval of the Government therefore is mandatory. Only when the Government grants approval, the right would accrue to the builder and not before that. Therefore, the date of approval is the crucial date.

REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9336 OF 2019
(Arising out of SLP(C) No.35685 of 2016)
CHENNAI METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY REPRESENTED BY ITS
MEMBER SECRETARY …Appellant
VERSUS
D. RAJAN DEV AND OTHERS …Respondents
J U D G M E N T
R. BANUMATHI, J.
Leave granted.

  1. This appeal arises out of the impugned judgment dated
    03.08.2016 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of
    Madras in W.A. No. 2376 of 2013 filed by the first respondent in and
    by which the Division Bench set aside the order of Single Judge and
    allowed the writ appeal thereby directing the appellant Chennai
    Metropolitan Development Authority (CMDA) to calculate the
    Premium FSI charges at the rate prevalent as on the date of filing of
    application by the first respondent Rajan Dev.
    1
  2. Respondent No.1 is a developer carrying on construction
    activities under the name and style of M/s. Ben Foundation. He
    submitted an application dated 07.05.2009 for planning permission
    to construct a residential-cum-shopping building at Survey Nos.
    223, 224 and 225, Padi Village, Padi Kuppam Road, Chennai for
    196 dwelling units. He proposed construction of Block A – Stilt
    floor(part) + GF(part) + 6 floors + 7th floor part; Block B and C – Stilt
  • 6 floors and Block D – Stilt + 7 floors with floor area of 14082.26
    sq.mt. and height of 22.80 mt. The planning permission was granted
    by the appellant CMDA on 01.07.2009. Initially, the sanction was
    mistakenly accorded for 14889 sq.mts. (1.84 FSI) instead of 14164
    sq.mts. (1.75 FSI). The excess area for which sanction was wrongly
    granted is 725 sq.mts. While the construction was in progress, on
    09.09.2009 vide G.O.Ms.No.163-Housing and Urban Development,
    respondent No.2-Government of Tamil Nadu introduced a scheme
    called “Premium FSI Scheme”, wherein the Government permitted
    any builder willing to pay FSI charges to increase FSI above the
    normally permitted FSI. Additional benefit by way of Premium FSI
    accrued to the developer is related to the proportionate land extent.
    As per the guidelines for Premium FSI, the amount payable by the
    applicant towards the Premium FSI charge shall be equivalent to
    the cost of the proportionate land as per the Guideline value of the
    2
    Registration Department. On 04.05.2011, the first respondent made
    an application along with revised proposal for permission to have
    additional FSI area of 11,860 sq.ft. (= 1102 sq. mt.) under the
    “Premium FSI Scheme” for extra fourteen dwelling units i.e. one
    floor each in two blocks. The said application was returned by the
    appellant on 10.02.2012 with the direction to furnish revised plan for
    rectifying sixteen defects as pointed out by the appellant. The first
    respondent submitted revised plans on 24.02.2012. The appellantCMDA vide its letter dated 30.03.2012 forwarded the revised plan to
    the Government seeking to accord approval to the recommendation
    of the Multi-storeyed building panel and for issue of planning
    permission. In the meantime, the State Government revised the
    guideline value of the land w.e.f. 01.04.2012.
  1. While the application of the first respondent for revised
    proposal was pending, the guideline value of the land was revised
    w.e.f. 01.04.2012 from Rs.1,650/- per sq.ft. to Rs.5,000/- per sq.ft.
    for the area which the first respondent has put up construction.
    After inspection of the site and recommendation of the multistoreyed building panel, on 29.05.2012, the Government granted
    approval for the Premium FSI. Pursuant to the sanction granted by
    the Government, the appellant-CMDA vide letter dated 02.07.2012
    3
    called upon the first respondent to remit “Premium FSI Charges”
    quantified at Rs.7,96,50,000/- for 1479.81 sq.mts. of the land area
    based on the revised guideline value of the property as revised
    w.e.f. 01.04.2012 by the Government and as provided at the time of
    the approval for the proposed construction.
  2. Vide letter dated 19.07.2012, the first respondent raised
    objections to the aforesaid calculation and also as regards the area.
    The first respondent submitted that the first respondent originally
    proposed to construct 14,889 sq.mts. of built up area of an extent of
    land of 8093.64 sq.mts. It was stated that the projected FSI at 1.74
    by adopting the total built up area was calculated as 14089 sq.mts.
    as against 14,889 sq.mts. and the same was a human error and the
    same led to all the confusion. The first respondent has also raised
    objection stating that he made the application during May, 2011
    itself and that he may be allowed to make payment of “Premium FSI
    Charges” by adopting the guideline value existed on both the dates
    of their application (04.05.2011) and the approval by the CMDA
    panel (30.03.2012). In the representation, the first respondent
    stated that they are ready to pay the “Premium FSI Charges” for
    both the projected built up area of 800 sq.mt. in the already
    approved plan and for the proposed built up area of 1102 sq.mts.
    4
    (proposed extra FSI of 0.24) by adopting the guideline value existed
    on the date of their application i.e. 04.05.2011. The said
    representation was rejected by the CMDA vide letter dated
    31.08.2012. The appellant by its letter dated 19.07.2012 modified
    the revised “Premium FSI Charges” for 1479.81 sq.mts. of the land
    area from Rs.7,96,50,000/- to Rs.7,61,40,000/-. By the time the
    plan was sanctioned, the guideline value had increased from
    Rs.1,650/- per sq.ft. to Rs.5,000/- per sq.ft. As per the revised
    guideline, the Premium FSI charges were calculated at the rate of
    Rs.5,000/- per sq.ft. and the same was quantified at
    Rs.7,61,05,480/-.
  3. The first respondent made further representation dated
    14.12.2012 requesting the appellant-CMDA to calculate the
    “Premium FSI Charges” taking into account the guideline value
    prevailing as on the date on which the application was submitted
    and not to levy “Premium FSI Charges” as per the revised guideline
    value. The first respondent also requested to deduct all balcony
    and duct wall area which is within the limit of 10% allowance. The
    representation made by the first respondent requesting for reduction
    of “Premium FSI Charges” was rejected by the appellant-CMDA by
    order dated 19.04.2013, affirming its earlier order dated 31.08.2012.
    5
    By its letters dated 23.05.2013 and 14.06.2013, first respondent
    sought for further thirty days’ time for remitting the Premium FSI
    charges as demanded by the appellant. By communication dated
    19.06.2013, the appellant-CMDA granted time till 15.07.2013 to pay
    Premium FSI charges.
  4. After so taking time, the first respondent filed the writ petition
    in WP No.18238 of 2013 before the Madras High Court. During the
    pendency of the writ petition, construction of 196 dwelling units was
    completed and a partial completion certificate dated 17.06.2013
    was granted. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition
    by holding that the first respondent is liable to pay the “Premium FSI
    Charges” as per the guideline value prevailing on the date of
    approval of the plan. The learned Single Judge held that the builder
    would not acquire any right by merely submitting application for
    building plan and the right to the builder would accrue only after the
    approval of the plan. The learned Single Judge also held that there
    was no undue delay on the part of CMDA or the second
    respondent-Government in disposing of the application of the first
    respondent.
  5. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of the writ petition, the first
    respondent preferred the writ appeal before the Division Bench
    6
    which came to be allowed by the impugned judgment. Relying upon
    Union of India and another v. Mahajan Industries Ltd. and another
    (2005) 10 SCC 203, the Division Bench held that the appellantCMDA is entitled to calculate levy of “Premium FSI Charges” taking
    into account the guideline value prevalent as on the date of the
    application for approval of the additional construction and not from
    the date on which the approval is being granted. During the
    pendency of the writ appeal, an amount of Rs.3,80,00,000/- was
    deposited by the first respondent pursuant to the order dated
    17.02.2014 passed by the Division Bench. A provisional completion
    certificate dated 16.10.2014 was granted for a total of 210 dwelling
    units. Being aggrieved, the appellant-CMDA has preferred this
    appeal.
  6. Mr. Jayanth Muthuraj, learned Senior counsel appearing for
    the appellant-CMDA submitted that under the “Premium FSI
    Scheme”, the application was returned for rectification of defects on
    10.02.2012 and the first respondent resubmitted the application on
    25.02.2012. Placing reliance upon Chennai Metropolitan
    Development Authority represented by its Member-Secretary and
    another v. Prestige Estates Project Ltd. 2019 (10) SCALE 78, it was
    submitted that the crucial date for determining the applicable rate for
    7
    Premium FSI Charges is the date on which the authority grants
    planning permission. It was submitted that mere pendency of the
    application or any payment made does not create any right under
    law in favour of the applicant till his application is considered and
    sanction is granted as laid down by the Supreme Court in Usman
    Gani J. Khatri of Bombay v. Cantonment Board and others (1992) 3
    SCC 455. The learned Senior counsel submitted that the
    judgments relied upon by the Division Bench viz. Union of India and
    others v. Dev Raj Gupta and others (1991) 1 SCC 63 and Union of
    India and another v. Mahajan Industries Ltd. and another (2005) 10
    SCC 203 are not applicable to the case in hand as both the
    judgments deal with the application for conversion and not
    application for building permission. The learned Senior counsel
    further submitted that the first respondent being an experienced
    builder with for more than three decades experience, is well aware
    of the procedure to be followed in making an application seeking
    planning permission, but had deliberately filed a defective
    application and therefore, the first respondent is not right in
    contending that there was delay on the part of the appellant-CMDA
    in processing the application.
    8
  7. Per contra, reiterating the findings of the Division Bench, Mr.
    K.V. Vishwanathan, learned Senior counsel appearing for the first
    respondent submitted that as rightly held by the Division Bench that
    the crucial date for determining Premium FSI has to be the date of
    receipt of the application by the first respondent. It was submitted
    that the first respondent has submitted the application for
    permission to have additional FSI under the “Premium FSI Scheme”
    way back on 04.05.2011 and the same was returned on 10.02.2012
    by the appellant for rectifying the defects nearly after a delay of nine
    months. It was further submitted that the application of the first
    respondent was pending consideration for quite some time with the
    appellant-CMDA and the Multi-Storeyed Building Panel discussed
    the application of the first respondent and forwarded the proposal to
    the Government with recommendation for approval even on
    30.03.2012. The learned Senior counsel further submitted that the
    Division Bench of the High Court rightly held that the FSI charges is
    payable on the date of filing of the application for conversion and
    not on the date of the approval and the impugned judgment
    warrants no interference.
  8. We have considered the submissions and carefully perused
    the impugned judgment and other materials on record. The point
    9
    falling for consideration is whether the High Court was right in
    holding that the Premium FSI charges are payable only as per the
    pre-revised guideline value as on 04.05.2011 i.e. the date of filing of
    application with revised plan, by the first respondent?
  9. On 07.05.2009, the first respondent submitted an application
    for construction of residential-cum-shopping complex at Padi
    Village, Padi Kuppam Road, Chennai. The planning permission was
    granted for the original plan by the appellant-CMDA on 01.07.2009.
    When the construction was in progress, the Government of Tamil
    Nadu introduced the “Premium FSI (Floor space Index) Scheme”
    vide G.O.Ms.No.163, Housing and Urban Development (UD-I) dated
    09.09.2009 as per which the Government permitted willing builders
    to increase FSI above the normally permitted FSI subject to a
    maximum of one relating the same to the road width parameters by
    paying premium FSI charges.
  10. Regulation 36 deals with “Premium FSI”, which reads as
    under:-
    “36. Premium FSI:- The Authority may allow Premium FSI over and
    above the normally allowable FSI subject to a maximum of 1 (one)
    relating the same to the road width parameters as follows:-
    Serial
    Number
    Road width Premium FSI
    (% of normally
    allowable FSI)
    (i) 18 meters and above
    (60’ and above)
    40%
    10
    (ii) 12 meters – below 18 meters
    (40’ – below 60’)
    30%
    (iii) 9 meters – below 12 meters
    (30’ – below 40’)
    20%
    The premium FSI shall be allowed in specific areas as may be notified,
    subject to Guidelines and on collection of charge at the rates as may be
    prescribed by the Authority with the approval of the Government. The
    amount so collected towards the award of Premium FSI shall be remitted
    into the Government account to be allotted separately for the purpose for
    utilizing it for infrastructure development in that area as may be directed
    by the Government.”
  11. The first respondent sought to avail the benefits of Premium
    FSI and submitted an application on 04.05.2011 seeking approval
    of additional FSI under the Premium FSI Scheme. The said
    application was returned by the appellant-CMDA on 10.02.2012 for
    rectification of defects. Thereafter, on 24.02.2012, first respondent
    submitted the revised plan after rectification of the defects.
  12. The Multi-Storeyed Building Panel considered the revised
    plan of the first respondent and the appellant-CMDA by its letter
    dated 30.03.2012 forwarded the proposal to the Government with
    recommendation for approval subject to the conditions indicated
    thereon. In the meanwhile, the Registration Department revised and
    notified the revised guideline value w.e.f. 01.04.2012 as per which
    the guideline value of Padi Kuppam Road was increased from
    Rs.1,650/- per sq.ft. to Rs.5,000/- per sq.ft. On 29.05.2012, the
    11
    Government granted approval to the revised plan of the first
    respondent. Based upon the revised guideline value, the appellantCMDA by its letter dated 02.07.2012 informed the first respondent
    that the Premium FSI has been levied at Rs.7,96,50,000/-. The
    same was later modified as Rs.7,61,40,000/-.
  13. Learned Senior counsel for the respondent contended that
    only the date of application for revised building plan has to be taken
    into consideration and the first respondent cannot be levied with the
    revised FSI Premium charges because of the time taken by CMDA
    in processing the application. The learned Senior counsel mainly
    relied upon the recommendation made by the appellant-CMDA to
    content that pre-revised guideline would only be applicable for
    calculation of the Premium FSI charges. The forwarding of the
    revised proposal by the appellant-CMDA to the Government reads
    as under:-
    “AGENDA ITEM NO:2/203 FILE NO: C3(N)/6476/2011
    Sub: CMDA – APU – MSB (North) Division – Planning
    Permission Application for the revised approval for the
    construction of Block A: Stilt/GF (Shop cum Parking) + 7
    Floors; Block-B, C and D: Stilt + 7 Floors Commercial cum
    Residential building with 210 dwelling units at T.S.No.113/2,
    Block No.65, Ward I, Old S.No.224/1 (part) of Padi Village,
    Padikuppam Road, Mogappair, Chennai – Applied by Thiru.
    D. Rajan Dev – Recommended for Approval – Reg
    12
    The MSB Panel discussed the subject in detail and
    recommended to forward the proposal to the Government
    recommending for approval subject to the following conditions:
    i) undertaking accepting conditions of NOCs to be obtained
    before issue of Planning Permission; and
    ii) undertaking to furnish IAF NOC before issue of completion
    certificate to be obtained before issue of Planning
    Permission.
    Sd./XXXX
    30.3.2012
    MEMBER SECRETARY”
    By reading of the above, it is seen that it is only forwarding of the
    proposal to the Government with recommendation for approval of
    the revised plan which is as per the procedure involved. Such
    forwarding of the proposal to the Government with recommendation
    for approval, does not create any right in favour of the respondent.
    In terms of Regulation 36, Premium FSI shall be allowed in specific
    areas as notified subject to guidelines with the approval of the
    Government and on collection of charges at the rates as may be
    prescribed by the authority. Thus, for the award of Premium FSI,
    inter-alia the conditions “collection of charges at the rates as may be
    prescribed by the authority” and “approval of the Government”, are
    mandatory. The collection of FSI Premium charges is subject to the
    guidelines. The revised guideline came into force w.e.f. 01.04.2012.
    Be it noted that the first respondent’s application was considered
    and finally approval was granted by the Government on 29.05.2012
    13
    only after revised guideline came into force. At the time of granting
    approval by the Government on 29.05.2012, when the revised
    guideline was in force, the High Court ought not to have held that
    the guideline value as on 04.05.2011, that is, the date of application
    of the first respondent, should be considered for the purpose of
    calculating Premium FSI charges. The right would accrue to the first
    respondent only after the Government grants approval to the
    revised plan sanctioning the Premium FSI. Thus, the date on which
    the approval was granted by the Government i.e. 29.05.2012 ought
    to have been taken into consideration for calculating the Premium
    FSI charges.
  14. It is well settled that no right accrues to an applicant until the
    application for approval is considered and sanctioned. The first
    respondent has given the proposal for revised building plan under
    Regulation 36 with a view to avail the benefit of Premium FSI. As
    pointed out earlier, the process of grant of Premium FSI is
    completed only after the grant of approval by the Government.
    Regulation 36 clearly provides that the Premium FSI shall be
    allowed in specific areas with the approval of the Government and
    the approval of the Government therefore is mandatory. Only when
    the Government grants approval, the right would accrue to the
    14
    builder and not before that. Therefore, the date of approval is the
    crucial date.
  15. Learned Senior counsel for the appellant has submitted that
    the builder would not acquire any legal right by merely submitting an
    application for approval of the building plan and the right would
    accrue only after sanction of the revised plan by the Government. In
    this regard, we may usefully refer to Usman Gani J. Khatri of
    Bombay v. Cantonment Board and Others (1992) 3 SCC 455 which
    has been referred to by the learned Single Judge in the order
    passed in the writ petition wherein, the Supreme Court held as
    under:-
    “24. …….The petitioners did not acquire any legal right in respect of
    building plans until the same were sanctioned in their favour after having
    paid the total amount of conversion charges in lump sum or in terms of
    sanctioned instalments and getting conversion of their land in freehold
    tenure…….”.
  16. As pointed out by the learned Single Judge, in Usman Gani,
    the Supreme Court in order to explain the unsustainability of the
    claim made by the builders has also explained a reverse case as
    under:-
    “24. ……..If we consider a reverse case where building regulations are
    amended more favourably to the builders before sanctioning of building
    plans already submitted, the builders would certainly claim and get the
    advantage of the regulations amended to their benefit.”
    15
    Learned Single Judge has also referred to State of W.B. v. Terra
    Firma Investments & Trading Pvt. Ltd. (1995) 1 SCC 125 and other
    judgments wherein, the Supreme Court held that no right accrues to
    the builder by mere submission of a plan for construction of a
    building which has not been sanctioned by the competent authority.
  17. In the impugned judgment, the High Court relied upon the
    decision in Union of India and Another v. Mahajan Industries Ltd.
    And Another (2005) 10 SCC 203 wherein, the Supreme Court had
    followed the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Ansal &
    Saigal Properties (P) Lts. bs. L & DO, holding that the crucial date
    for calculating the conversion charges has to be the date of receipt
    of application for conversion of land use. It is the submission of the
    appellant that the decision in the said case is not applicable to the
    case in hand as the said judgment deals with application for
    conversion of land and not the application for building permission.
    Apart from that, there was delay of more than three years in
    deciding the said application. We find merit in the submission of the
    appellant that the decision in Mahajan Industries is not applicable to
    the facts of the present case. Though the application was filed on
    04.05.2011 and resubmitted after rectification of defects on
    24.02.2012, the Government approved the revised proposal only on
    16
    29.05.2012. In the meanwhile, the revised guideline value was
    introduced for implementation w.e.f. 01.04.2012. As rightly held by
    the learned Single Judge that the first respondent/builder does not
    acquire any legal right until the plan is sanctioned.
  18. Mere pendency of the application for planning permission
    does not create a vested right in an applicant. Right accrues only
    when the permission/sanction is granted by the
    Government/concerned authorities. This is because planning
    permission is accorded on the basis of scrutiny of application form
    and the concerned documents. There is always possibility of an
    application not meeting the requisite criteria for carrying out the
    proposed development and being rejected. Until and unless an
    application complete in all respect is approved, it remains a mere
    application and no right can be claimed on the basis of such an
    application. A proposal cannot be equated with an approval,
    otherwise the later will lose all significance. The obvious logical
    conclusion is that the right to an applicant accrues when the
    permission has been granted. Further, as a corollary, it can be said
    that the rates prevailing at the time of granting of permission are the
    rates which an applicant has to pay. The respondent/applicant
    cannot claim the benefit of the earlier guideline value existing prior
    17
    to the date when approval was granted by the government. In our
    considered view, the respondent will have to pay FSI Premium
    charges based on the guideline value as existing on the date of
    grant of approval.
  19. Learned Senior counsel for the appellant has placed reliance
    upon Chennai Municipal Development Authority v. Prestige Estates
    Projects Limited 2019 (10) Scale 78. In Prestige Estates, despite
    the payment having been made by the builder on 28.03.2012, the
    Supreme Court held that the developer is liable to pay Premium FSI
    charges based on the revised guideline value which are applicable
    post 01.04.2012. In Prestige Estates, after referring to Usman Gani
    and other judgments, the Supreme Court held that the demand on
    account of Premium FSI charges arises only upon the grant of
    approval by the Government to avail Premium FSI. The ratio of the
    decision in Prestige Estates is squarely applicable to the present
    case. In the present case, since the sanction for revised plan was
    granted by the Government on 29.05.2012, the first respondent in
    the present case is liable to pay the Premium FSI charges based on
    the revised guideline value which came into force w.e.f. 01.04.2012.
  20. Learned Senior counsel for the first respondent inter-alia
    contended that there was inordinate delay on the part of appellant18
    CMDA in processing the application and the first respondent cannot
    be burdened with extra charges on account of delay caused by the
    appellant. Learned Senior counsel further submitted that the
    application of the first respondent dated 04.05.2011 for revised
    proposal was returned after nine months on 10.02.2012 and the
    respondent cannot be blamed for the delay caused by the appellant
    in processing the application of the first respondent. This contention
    does not merit acceptance. The appellant-CMDA is a body
    entrusted with the task of examination and approval of multitude of
    building applications throughout the planning area. That apart, the
    appellant-CMDA is a single window system and it has to verify
    various documents with the connected Departments at various
    levels. The application was processed at various levels and it was
    sent to the departments like police, Fire, etc. for clearance.
    Considering the fact that different departments and agencies are
    involved with the process of approval, we feel that, there was no
    undue delay on the part of the appellant-CMDA or the State
    Government. As rightly pointed out by the learned Single Judge, the
    first respondent submitted the application after rectification of
    defects only on 24.02.2012 and within a period of one month, the
    application was placed before the meeting. Therefore, it cannot be
    said that there was undue delay on the part of the appellant-CMDA
    19
    or Government to consider the first respondent’s application for
    approval of the revised plan.
  21. In the impugned judgment, the Division Bench has relied upon
    Union of India and Others v. Dev Raj Gupta and Others (1991) 1
    SCC 63 and Mahajan Industries Limited. The ratio of those
    decisions is not applicable to the case in hand as those decisions
    relate to application for conversion of the land and not building
    permission application. That apart, in those cases, there was a
    delay of more than three years in deciding the application. In the
    present case, as discussed above, there was no delay on the part of
    the appellant-CMDA or the Government to consider the first
    respondent’s application for approval.
  22. As submitted by the learned Senior counsel for the appellantCMDA, the conduct of the first respondent is also to be taken note
    of. After the levy of Premium FSI charges calling upon the first
    respondent to pay a sum of Rs.7,61,40,000/-, the first respondent
    submitted a representation on 19.07.2012 requesting to revise the
    Premium FSI charges by considering the guideline value prevailing
    as on the date of the application i.e. 04.05.2011. The said
    representation was rejected by the appellant-CMDA by its letter
    dated 31.08.2012 and the first respondent was directed to make
    20
    payment of Premium FSI Charges. The first respondent was also
    informed that if the payment was not made within sixty days, the
    application will be returned. The first respondent’s further
    representation dated 14.12.2012 also came to be rejected.
    Thereafter, by letters dated 23.05.2013 and 14.06.2013, the first
    respondent had prayed for thirty days’ time for remitting the
    Premium FSI charges as demanded by the appellant-CMDA. By
    communication dated 19.06.2013, the first respondent was granted
    time upto 15.07.2013 to pay Premium FSI charges. After so getting
    extension of time, the first respondent filed writ petition before the
    High Court challenging the order of CMDA dated 31.08.2012 and
    prayed for quashing the demand. It is to be pointed out that the
    learned Single Judge also commented on the conduct of first
    respondent in obtaining extension of time to remit the Premium FSI
    charges and thereafter, filing the writ petition before the High Court
    challenging the demand.
  23. The Division Bench did not keep in view the well settled
    principle that no right accrued to the applicant-builder by mere filing
    of application for approval and the right accrues only after approval
    is granted by the Government/concerned authorities. The impugned
    judgment is contrary to the well settled principle that the applicant
    21
    does not acquire any right under law till his application is considered
    and sanctioned. Regulation 36 clearly provides that the Premium
    FSI shall be allowed in specific areas only with the approval of the
    Government. Unless and until the Government grants approval, no
    right accrued to the first respondent. When the Government
    sanctioned the approval on 29.05.2012, the Division Bench erred in
    directing the appellant to calculate the FSI charges as per the
    guideline value as on 04.05.2011. The impugned judgment is
    therefore liable to be set aside.
  24. In the result, the impugned judgment dated 03.08.2016
    passed by the High Court of Madras in W.A. No.2376 of 2013 is set
    aside and this appeal is allowed. The appellant-CMDA is at liberty to
    recover the balance Premium FSI charges from the first respondent
    in accordance with its regulations and rules. No costs.
    ………………………..J.
    [R. BANUMATHI]
    ………………………..J.
    [A.S. BOPANNA]
    .………………………..J.
    [HRISHIKESH ROY]
    New Delhi;
    December 11, 2019.
    22