Judgment K. Ravichandrabaabu, J. 1. The petitioners are private limited companies. 2. The petitioners are aggrieved against the order of the first respondent dated 17.02.2014, wherein the approval sought for the sub-division of the property in dispute has been rejected and the Open Space Reservation Charges (hereinafter referred to as 'OSR charges') were sought to be levied by applying the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971, (in short 'the Act'). 3. Following are the short facts that arise for consideration in this writ petition:- (i) The property at survey Nos.238/4E, 238/4F and 238/4I were originally part of a larger extent of 4.26 acres of agricultural lands comprised in survey No.238/4 of Kottivakkam village and it was owned by one K.G. Selvaraj Pillai. The said person partitioned the said larger extent of 4.26 acres of agricultural lands, comprised in survey No.238/4 on 07.10.1978, by way of a registered partition deed under document No.2227 of 1978. The said partition took place between himself, his two sons and his wife. Consequently, the said property at survey No.238/4 came to be subdivided into nine individual plots bearing survey Nos.238/4A, 238/4B, 238/4C, 238/4D, 238/4E, 238/4F, 238/4G, 238/4H and 238/4I. After such partition, one of his son by name K.S. Sankaranarayanan became the absolute owner of plot bearing survey No.238/4E and also become the owner of an undivided 50% of share in plot bearing survey No.238/4I. Similarly, another son by name K.S. Padmanabhan became absolute owner of plot bearing survey No.238/4E and also became the owner of an undivided 50% of share in plot bearing survey No.238/4I. Even though the said partition took place and subdivision was done as stated supra, there was no change in character of the lands and it continued to be as agricultural lands. Adangal issued by the Village Administrative Officer for the period from 1969 to 1979 also showed that the said property was put into cultivation even in the year 1979. (ii) On 12.04.1991, the second petitioner purchased the agricultural land measuring an extent of 0.32 acres in survey No.238/4F and 0.02.5 acres out of the undivided share of 0.05 acres in survey No.238/4I from K.S. Sankaranarayanan and his children by a registered sale deed. (ii) On 12.04.1991, the second petitioner purchased the agricultural land measuring an extent of 0.32 acres in survey No.238/4F and 0.02.5 acres out of the undivided share of 0.05 acres in survey No.238/4I from K.S. Sankaranarayanan and his children by a registered sale deed. The first petitioner purchased the agricultural land measuring an extent of 0.325 acres at survey No.238/4E and 0.02.5 acres out of undivided share of 0.05 acres in survey No.238/4I from the other son K.S. Padmanabhan by a registered sale deed, dated 15.07.1991. Both the petitioners have purchased the above said lands as pre-existing plots and there was no subdivision whatsoever at the time of purchase of the aforementioned plots. Thus, the petitioners jointly purchased a total extent of 0.65 acres of agricultural lands comprised in S.Nos.238/4E, 238/4F and 238/4I in Kottivakkam village through registered sale deeds. Subsequent to the said purchase, mutation of revenue records had taken place and patta was also issued in favour of the petitioners. Even in the said patta, the said lands have been characterised as Punja lands (dry agricultural land). Likewise the remaining part of the lands retained by the vendors at survey Nos.238/4A, 238/4B, 238/4C and 238/4D were also declared as agricultural lands by the competent authority namely, the Assistant Commissioner of Urban Land Tax, Alandur, through his proceedings dated 16.02.1996. (iii) During the month of February 2013, the petitioners submitted application under Section 49 of the Town and Country Planning Act for approval of the subdivision of the said properties together with the proposed subdivision plan to the respondents. Since the character of the land is sought to be changed, such permission is required under the Act. The total extent of the property sought to be sub-divided is 0.65 acres, which is less than 3000sq.meters and the petitioners applied for subdivision of the said properties into five plots. The respondent originally communicated that the proposed subdivision would attract OSR charges. The petitioners through their representation dated 15.06.2013 informed the respondent that OSR charges are not attracted to the present case. However, the first respondent through their communication dated 06.09.2013, informed that the site under reference will attract OSR charges, since the land is subdivided for urban use. Therefore, the said communication was challenged by the petitioners in W.P.No.32285 of 2013 before this Court. However, the first respondent through their communication dated 06.09.2013, informed that the site under reference will attract OSR charges, since the land is subdivided for urban use. Therefore, the said communication was challenged by the petitioners in W.P.No.32285 of 2013 before this Court. An order came to be passed on 29.11.2013 in the above said writ petition, by directing the petitioners to make a representation to the first respondent and consequently, directing the first respondent to pass appropriate orders on the said representation on merits and in accordance with law. Accordingly, the petitioners made a representation, which came to be rejected through the impugned order in this writ petition. 4. The first respondent filed a counter affidavit, wherein it is stated as follows:- The Managing Director of the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority/first respondent, forwarded the planning permission application to the Corporation of Chennai, which in turn forwarded the same for the subdivision proposal at survey Nos.238/4E, 238/4F and 238/4I of Kottivakkam village and requested clarification regarding collection of Open Space Reservation. Through the communication dated 06.09.2013, the first respondent informed the Corporation of Chennai that the sub-division proposal will attract OSR charges, since the land is subdivided for urban use. Further, through letter dated 17.02.2014, the CMDA informed the petitioners that the land under reference was subdivided unauthorisedly after 05.08.1975, from larger extent for urban use and that the OSR charge is applicable to the case of the petitioners. The land under reference is 2550 sq.meter, which is less than 3000sq.meter has been subdivided unauthorisedly in the year 1978 for urban use and therefore, the OSR charge is applicable. 5. Mr. P.S. Raman, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted as follows:- (i) Section 49 of the Act will apply only in respect of application seeking permission to carry out development of any land or building and such development as defined under Section 2(13) of the said Act is only referable to the making of any material change in the use of any building or land. So long as the character of the land is maintained as agricultural land at all times, there is no scope for applying Section 49 of the Act to the case of the petitioners. So long as the character of the land is maintained as agricultural land at all times, there is no scope for applying Section 49 of the Act to the case of the petitioners. The land was forming part of larger extent of 4.26 acres of agricultural lands comprised in Survey No.238/4 and the petitioners have also purchased the subject matter of land only as an agricultural land and therefore, the sub-division which took place consequent upon the earlier partition, does not attract the provisions of the said Act. Therefore, there is no scope for the respondent to insist upon the petitioners' to pay OSR charges. (ii) The competent authority under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, through proceedings dated 16.02.1996 has declared the other portions of the land retained by the vendors at survey Nos.238/4A, 238/4B, 238/4C, 238/4D, measuring an extent of 1.41.5 heactres as agricultural lands and the same do not attract the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978. The CMDA also through proceedings dated 16.09.2011, categorically stated that in cases where the lands have been purchased as agricultural land and now proposed for conversion into development sites, the question of scrutiny of its existence prior to 05.08.1975, does not arise, as any agricultural sub-division does not attract the provision of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971. At any event, as the subject matter of property is measuring an extent of 2550 sq.meter, which is less than 3000sq.meter, applicability of the OSR charges does not arise even as per the CMDA Regulations. 6. Per contra, Mr. N. Sampath, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent supported the impugned order and reiterated the contentions stated therein. The basic contention of the learned counsel for the first respondent is that the very sub-division that had taken place in the year 1978, is an unauthorised one and therefore, based on such sub-division, the petitioners cannot seek for approval and consequently, cannot escape from the applicability of OSR charges. 7. Heard the learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent. 8. The learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner at the time of arguing the case has given up the second respondent. Accordingly, the second respondent is deleted from the present proceedings based on the endorsement made by the learned counsel on record. 9. 8. The learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner at the time of arguing the case has given up the second respondent. Accordingly, the second respondent is deleted from the present proceedings based on the endorsement made by the learned counsel on record. 9. The point for consideration in this writ petition is as to whether the impugned order passed by the first respondent in holding that the earlier sub-division made in the year 1978, as unauthorised one, is valid and consequently, whether the petitioners are bound to pay OSR charges, while seeking for approval of present sub-division. 10. It is not in dispute that the petitioners have purchased 0.65 acres of agricultural land comprised in survey Nos.238/4E, 238/4F and 238/4I in Kottivakkam village through two registered sale deeds dated 12.04.1991 and 15.07.1991. It is also not in dispute that those lands purchased by the petitioners, were originally forming part of a larger extent of 4.26 acres of agricultural land comprised in Survey No.238/4 owned by one K.G. Selvaraj Pillai. It is seen that the said K.G. Selvaraj Pillai entered into a partition with his children and wife through a registered partition deed dated 07.10.1978, partitioning the said 4.26 acres of land. 11. A perusal of the said partition deed, more particularly with regard to survey No.238/4, would show that the said property was described as Punja Land. The adangal extract issued to Fasli 1377 would also show that the said property was treated as an agricultural property. In fact, it is specifically stated therein that brinjal was cultivated in the said property during that time. It appears that consequent upon such partition, the sub-division has taken place in survey No.238/4. Thereafter, the petitioners purchased the properties at survey No.238/4F, 238/4E, 238/4I, totally measuring an extent of 0.65 acres on 12.04.1991 and 15.07.1991. A perusal of the above sale deeds also show that the properties purchased by the petitioners, were referred to only as the agricultural lands. Thereafter, the petitioners purchased the properties at survey No.238/4F, 238/4E, 238/4I, totally measuring an extent of 0.65 acres on 12.04.1991 and 15.07.1991. A perusal of the above sale deeds also show that the properties purchased by the petitioners, were referred to only as the agricultural lands. Even after the purchase made by the petitioners in the year 1991, a proceeding issued by the competent authority under the Urban Land Ceiling Act, dated 16.02.1996, clearly declared the remaining part of the lands namely survey Nos.238/4A, 238/4B, 238/4C and 238/4D measuring an extent of 1.41.5 heactres of lands as agricultural lands and that the said lands do not attract the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation), Act, 1978. 12. It is not in dispute that the land purchased by the petitioners were originally forming part of the total extent of 4.26 acres under survey No.238/4 and it is stated that the said lands are lying adjacent to the remaining larger extent. There is no contra materials placed before this Court to show that the lands purchased by the petitioners are not agricultural lands. Therefore, so long as the character of the land continues to be the agricultural land, the first respondent is not entitled to attract the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971, which is evident from their own proceedings dated 16.09.2011, wherein at para No.11, it has been stated as follows:- In cases where the lands had been purchased as agricultural lands and now proposed for conversion into development sites, the question of scrutiny of its existence prior to 05.08.1975, does not arise as any agricultural sub-division does not attract the provision of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971. 13. The materials placed before this Court only establish that the lands in dispute are agricultural lands all through out even before the purchase and thereafter. Therefore, the sub-division of agricultural lands that has taken place in the year 1978, cannot be treated as sub-division for the purpose of putting into for different use. 14. The counter affidavit filed by the first respondent proceeded to support the impugned order only by contending that the subject matter of land was sub-divided unauthorisedly after 05.08.1975, from larger extent for urban use. 14. The counter affidavit filed by the first respondent proceeded to support the impugned order only by contending that the subject matter of land was sub-divided unauthorisedly after 05.08.1975, from larger extent for urban use. Such contention of the first respondent, in our considered view, is without any basis in view of the fact that the sub-division was made among the family members of K.G. Selvaraj Pillai by treating the land as agricultural land only, as evident from the partition deed. 15. Further, the two sale deeds executed in favour of the petitioners that too nearly after 13 years of such sub-division also describes the lands as agricultural lands only. Therefore, the contention of the first respondent that the above sub-division was for urban use, is liable to be rejected, as the same is not supported by any material evidence. 16. When the subdivision was made in respect of agricultural land and if such sub-division is not attracting the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act as admitted by the first respondent themselves in their own proceedings dated 16.09.2011, as extracted supra, we find that the impugned order cannot be sustained. After the purchase and keeping the lands as agricultural land all along, now the petitioners want to make it for different use by making subdivision. Therefore, the present sub-division sought to be made by the petitioners cannot be clubbed with the earlier sub-division. 17. Even otherwise the case of the petitioners can be looked into in a different angle also to justify their contentions. The partition in the family of K.G. Selvaraj Pillai took place in the year 1978 followed by the sub-division of the survey numbers. The petitioners are totally strangers and they purchased the property only in the year 1991. After such purchase, it becomes their absolute property and that being the factual position, we do not find any justification on the part of the first respondent in holding 2550 sq.meters of land purchased by the petitioners, as forming part of the remaining larger extent of more than 10,000 sq.meter and consequently, to apply the OSR charges on the petitioners. It is an admitted fact that the OSR charges are applicable, only if the land measures 3000 sq.meter or more. 18. Considering all the facts and circumstances, we are of the view that the petitioners are entitled to succeed in this writ petition. It is an admitted fact that the OSR charges are applicable, only if the land measures 3000 sq.meter or more. 18. Considering all the facts and circumstances, we are of the view that the petitioners are entitled to succeed in this writ petition. Accordingly, the Writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. It is made clear that since the second respondent has been given up by the petitioners, the consequential prayer sought for in this writ petition as against the second respondent, does not arise for consideration in the writ petition. However, it is open to the petitioners to make appropriate application before the appropriate authority based on the order passed in this writ petition for further relief if any. No costs.