JUDGMENT (Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the order passed by the 2nd respondent, dated 02.03.2022 bearing reference number Na.Ka.7791/2020/DCB5 and quash the same and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to refund to the petitioner the sum of Rs.33,22,500/- (Rupees Thirty Three Lakh Twenty Two Thousand Five Hundred only) collected from the petitioner towards Infrastructure and Amenities Charges vice the cancelled/surrendered Planning Permits bearing numbers Na.Ka.No.1444/2015, dated 04.11.2015, and Na.Ka.No.12593/2016, dated 26.12.2016.) 1.The petitioner has filed this writ petition to quash the impugned order dated 02.03.2022 bearing reference Na.Ka.No.7791/2020/DCB5. By the impugned communication, the 2nd respondent has declined the request of the petitioner for refund of the amount paid by the petitioner towards the Infrastructure and Amenities Charges for construction of 124 units as a multi storey building pursuant to a planning permission granted to the petitioner. 2. It is submitted that the petitioner was unable to develop the land for putting up constructions and therefore got the plan cancelled and thereafter decided to plot the land and sell it as independent plots to prospective buyers. It is further submitted that layout has been approved by the respondents vide order dated 23.11.2022 bearing reference Na.Ka.No.3659/2020/Aa3. It is therefore submitted that in view of the cancellation of the building permission which was originally granted to the petitioner, the petitioner is entitled for refund of Rs.33,22,500/- paid by the petitioner in 2 installments (Rs.32,47,500/- and Rs.75,000/- during 2015 and 2017) towards Infrastructure and Amenities Charges. 3. It is the specific case of the petitioner that the petitioner had initially proposed to build a multi storage building and had paid the infrastructure and amenities charges in terms of Section 63A, 63B and 63C of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 has inserted by Tamil Nadu Act 28 of 1978 and the subsequent amendments by Tamil Nadu Act No.34 of 2007 with effect from 01.06.2007. 4. It is submitted that the petitioner was however unable to commence construction and therefore the petitioner decided to abandon the project and instead decided to sell the land by plotting it. 4. It is submitted that the petitioner was however unable to commence construction and therefore the petitioner decided to abandon the project and instead decided to sell the land by plotting it. It is further submitted that the issue is now squarely covered by the order of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.16647 of 2017 vide order dated 10.01.2018 in the case of The Member Secretary Vs The Housing Secretary, Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority, Egmore, Chennai – 600 008 and others. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the above decision has also been recently followed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.9370 of 2020 vide order dated 04.08.2020 in the case of Malles Constructions Private Limited Vs. Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep by its Secretary, The Housing and Urban Development Department, Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009 and others. It is therefore submitted that there is no impediments for refunding the amount paid by the petitioner in terms of the aforesaid decision. 6.The learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand submits the writ petition the amount which was paid appropriated to the funds contemplated under the aforesaid provisions of the Act and the Rules framed therein namely Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning (Levy of Infrastructure and Amenities Charges) Rules, 2008 and the notification issued thereunder in G.O.(Ms)No.86 Housing and Urban Development (UD 4(1)) Department dated 28.03.2012 and therefore there is no scope for refunding the amount. 7. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. 8. There is no basis on which the impugned order can be sustained as the issue has already been decided by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in the above cited case. That apart, the amount that is collected is only a fee. It was not collected as a compulsory exaction of amount like a tax. Therefore, the impugned order refusing to refund the amount paid by the petitioner is un-sustainable. Though the petitioner may have an alternate remedy, I do not see any point in relegating the petitioner to work out the remedy in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court which has also been followed by the learned Single Judge of this Court and the Notification cited supra. Though the petitioner may have an alternate remedy, I do not see any point in relegating the petitioner to work out the remedy in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court which has also been followed by the learned Single Judge of this Court and the Notification cited supra. The respondents are directed to refund the amount paid by the petitioner within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 9. Accordingly, this writ petition stands disposed of with the above observations. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.