Partly allowed

M/s. Utkarsha Estates v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC15 Jul 2022WP/18390/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged demand for penalty/seigniorage fee and restrictions on plot selling due to pending mining dues. Court held no rule requires No Objection Certificate from Mines Dept for layout approval. Writ allowed to clear restrictions on plot sales without inspecting mining dues, while demand challenge remains open for appeal. Serving layout processing on merits without mining hold.

What did the court decide?

Allowed to direct respondents to grant layout approval without requiring No Objection Certificate from Mines Dept; pending demands cannot block plot sales; challenge to demand notice left open for app

M/s. Utkarsha Estates Vs The State of… — Municipal and Town Planning | Andhra Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.18390 of 2022

¶3

ORDER:-

¶4

The petitioner had undertaken the exercise of making a layout over an extent of 8.10 acres of land in Nagarampalem Village, Rajapulova Village and Cherukupalli Village of Vizianagaram District in the year 2010-2011. Thereafter, the 4^th respondent had issued a notice to the petitioner to show cause as to why penalty and seigniorage fee should not be collected from the petitioner in relation to 55,428 cubic meters of gravel and 4586.40 cubic meters of ordinary earth, that is said to have been used for formation of roads in the said layout. The petitioner had filed his objections to the same. The 4^th respondent had thereafter issued a demand notice dated 18.12.2020 calling upon the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.70,69,887/-.

¶5

Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner challenged the said demand notice before this Court by way of Writ Petition No.13671 of 2021. This Court, by an order dated 16.07.2021, had disposed of the Writ Petition with a direction to the respondents to consider the explanation given by the petitioner again and not to take any coercive steps against the petitioner pursuant the demand notice dated 18.12.2020 and consequential notice dated 08.04.2021

¶6

Consequent to the said order, the 4^th respondent again passed a fresh order dated 08.12.2021 rejecting the contentions raised by the petitioner.

¶7

It is the case of the petitioner that the earth used in the formation of the road was excavated within the layout area and as such would not attract any seigniorage fee. The petitioner relies upon the judgment of this Court dated 06.07.2020 in W.P.No.41929 of 2018.

¶8

The petitioner states that the petitioner was unaware of the orders passed on 08.12.2021 and came to know of the same only when the Visakhapatnam Metropolitan

¶9

¶10

Regional Development Authority directed the petitioner, by endorsement dated 07.06.2022 to obtain No Objection Certificate from the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology Department on account of the demand notice dated 08.12.2021 and to pay the penalty amount Rs.55,93,265/- fixed payable under the said demand notice, before his application for approval of the final layout can be considered.

¶11

The petitioner being aggrieved by the said demand notice dated 08.12.2021 and consequential endorsement dated 07.06.2022 as well as the earlier notice of 08.04.2021 has approached this Court by way of the present Writ Petition.

¶12

The petitioner has sought three (03) separate reliefs in this Writ Petition, namely –

¶13

1. To set aside the demand notice No.4001/RVSVg/VZM/2020 dated 08.12.2021 issued by the respondent No.4,

¶14

1. For setting aside the letter No.4001/RVS-Vg/VZM/2020-2 dated 08.04.2021 issued by the respondent No.4 to the respondent No.6 seeking for holding the registration of the property of the petitioner to its intending purchasers in relation to the plots in the aforesaid layout,

¶15

1. For a declaration that the respondent No.8 cannot insist for production of a No Objection Certificate from the respondent No.4 before processing the application of the petitioner for approval of the layout of the petitioner and to set aside letter No.EDS/1167/2018/0156 dated 07.06.2022.

¶16

As far as the challenge to the demand notice dated

¶17

08.12.2021 is concerned, the same requires a verification of

¶18

¶19

facts which can be done more appropriately under a revision or appeal filed by the petitioner under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Minor and Mineral Concession Rules. To that extent, it is left open to the petitioner to exercise his rights.

¶20

In relation to the other two prayers, Sri V. Surya Kiran Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.7 & 8, produced written instructions in which it is stated that there is no provision under the building rules issued under G.O.Ms. No.275, MA & UD dated 18.07.2017 for insisting for a No Objection Certificate from the Mines and Geology Department before considering the grant of approval for a layout. In the circumstances, this Writ Petition is allowed to the extent of directing the respondent Nos. 7 & 8 to consider the application of the petitioner for grant of layout in accordance with law and without reference to the production of a No Objection Certificate from the Mines and Geology Department. Once there is no provision for requiring a No Objection Certificate for grant of approval of the layout, the consequence would be that there cannot be any restriction placed on the right of the petitioner to sell the plots in the layout, on the ground of a pending demand against the petitioner by the Mines and Geology Department. However, this would not preclude the Mines and Geology Department from taking any other steps for recovery of their dues in accordance with law.

¶21

In the circumstances, this Writ Petition is partly allowed leaving it open to the petitioner to approach the appropriate authorities in the event of the petitioners being aggrieved by the demand notice dated 08.12.2021 and with a

¶22

¶23

further direction to the respondent Nos. 7 & 8 to process the application of the petitioner for approval of the layout without reference to the claims of the Mines Department. The interim direction granted by the order dated 01.07.2022, directing the respondents not to stop registration of any transactions carried out by the petitioner, on the ground of pending demand, provided the said documents are in order otherwise, is made absolute and shall be treated as being part of this order.

¶24

The aforesaid directions shall not preclude the respondents from considering the application of the petitioner, in accordance with law and to pass appropriate orders only after being satisfied that the application for the layout is otherwise in order and the sale of plots is permissible under law. No costs.

¶25

Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.

¶26

___________________________________ JUSTICE R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO

¶27

Date : 15.07.2022 MJA

¶28

¶29

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO

¶30

WRIT PETITION No.18390 of 2022

¶31

Date : 15.07.2022

¶32

MJA

M/s. Utkarsha Estates v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. Utkarsha Estates v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vegesana Satyanarayana Raju Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

M/S. Floyd Qc and Engineering Consultancy Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Karudumpa Lakshmi Devi Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Bathula Veeranjaneyulu Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

The Harijana Co-operative Labour Contract Society Vs The State of Andhra pradesh

Smt.Gudla Lakshmi, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh