Allowed

M/s. New Reef Reality and Asset Management Services, v. The Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority

Telangana HC25 Apr 2012WP/12207/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A single-judge division of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh disposed of a writ petition challenging the withholding of a final layout by the Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority. The court relied on a previous batch order and decreed in favour of the petitioner despite the regulatory ambiguity.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of in terms of the order dated 28.04.2010 passed in W.P. No.26688 of 2007.

M/s. New Reef Reality and Asset Management… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWELVE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH

¶5

W.P. No.12207 of 2012

¶6

Between:

¶7

M/s.New Reef Reality & Asset Management Services … Petitioner And The Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority, Rep.by its Metropolitan Commissioner, Tarnaka, Hyderabad. … Respondent

¶8

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH

¶9

W.P. No.12207 of 2012

¶10

ORDER:

¶11

Questioning the action of the respondent in not releasing the final layout to the petitioner in respect of land in Survey No.831(P), 832, 833, 834, 841(P) 842/P, 843, 1007(P), 1008(P), 1009, 1010(P), 1013 and 1014 of Upperpally Village, Shameerpet Mandal, R.R. District, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.

¶12

The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that it is a private company, engaged in real estate, construction of residential flats etc. It had applied for grant of lay out in respect of the aforementioned land vide application dated 21.06.2004. Pursuant to the said application, respondent authority issued a tentative layout and since the petitioner had complied with the requirement laid down in the tentative layout, it had applied to the respondent for grant of a final layout in respect of the said land. Application of the petitioner for receiving the final layout is kept pending by the respondent on the ground that the petitioner should produce

¶13

No Objection Certificate from the competent authority under the Agricultural Land Conversion Act, 2006.

¶14

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that this matter is squarely covered by the order dated 28.04.2010 passed in W.P. No.26688 of 2007 and batch. Therefore, he requested to pass similar order.

¶15

On the other hand, the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent does not dispute the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶16

From a perusal of the order dated 28.04.2010 passed in W.P. No.26688 of 2007, this Court passed the following order, which reads the operative portion as under.

¶17

“There is absolutely no quarrel with the principles enunciated and reiterated in the judgments, referred to above. The occasion to apply them would arise, if only thee is any conflict between 1975 Act, on the one hand, and the 2006 Act, on the other hand. A close analysis of the objects underlying the said enactments would reveal that both of them operate in totally different areas altogether. As mentioned in the earlier paragraphs, while the former deals with the promotion and development of urban areas, the latter places restrictions on the use of the land, irrespective of its location.

¶18

It is lastly urged by the petitioners that insistence on clearance under the 2006 Act, even where a land ceased to be agricultural, prior to the enactment of that legislation cannot be sustained in law. In this regard, it needs to be observed that there is no indication to the effect that the enactment is retrospective in operation. It is only from the date on which the Act came into force, that no piece of land which was earmarked for agriculture, and is shown as such in the revenue records, can be put to nonagricultural use.

¶19

In case the land was already put to residential or other use, much before the said Act came into force, a permission under it cannot be insisted. This, however, is a matter, which needs to be verified by the concerned authority. If the petitioners are able to prove that the land has been put to non-agricultural use much before the Act came into force, they cannot be required to obtain the permission under that Act.

¶20

For the foregoing reasons, the writ petitions are disposed of, holding that,

¶21

a) it shall be competent for the Urban Development Authorities, or the Local Authorities, as the case may be, to insist on submission of clearance/permission under the 2006 Act as a condition precedent for releasing of layouts; and

¶22

b) the land has been put to non-agricultural use before the 2006 Act came into force, such clearance/permission shall not be insisted.”

¶23

Since the subject matter of this writ petition is squarely covered by the order dated 28.04.2010, following the said order, this writ petition is disposed of in terms of the order dated 28.04.2010 passed in W.P. No.26688 of 2007 and batch.

¶24

Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶25

________________________ JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH

¶26

Date: 25.04.2012 LSK

M/s. New Reef Reality and Asset Management Services, v. The Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. New Reef Reality and Asset Management Services, v. The Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

G.Rama Subba Reddy Vs The District Collector

V.G.Rama Krishna, Vs Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation

S. Sriramappa , Sreeramulu Vs The Assistant Director of Mines and Geology

Shiv Kumar Gupta Vs The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation

Korukonda Krishna, Vs The Government of A.P.

Ad-Age Outdoor Advertising Pvt. Ltd., rep. by its Director Vs The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation