Allowed

Samala Sadanandam v. The Government of a.P,. Rep. by its Secretary

Telangana HC1 Dec 2014WP/16525/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition allowed challenging demand for enhanced conversion charges after long delay. Court held Authority cannot take advantage of own inaction by applying new rates retrospectively to pending applications.

What did the court decide?

Notices demanding difference in conversion charges set aside; respondents directed to process application for final notification taking the amount paid by petitioner pursuant to earlier notice.

Samala Sadanandam Vs The Government of a.P… — Municipal and Town Planning | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.16525 of 2007

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the third respondent.

¶5

The petitioner is the owner and possessor of the agricultural land in Survey No.856(P) admeasuring 1362 square meters situated at Hunter Road, Hanamkonda. The said property was originally earmarked for agricultural use in the master plan of Warangal Town, which was prepared in the year 1971. In the year 1999 the Warangal Municipality was upgraded as Municipal Corporation. The property of the petitioner was abutting the 100 feet PWD road which was developed commercially on either side. The petitioner wanted to change the land from agricultural use to commercial use. Accordingly, he submitted an application to the second respondent. The second respondent forwarded the same to the third respondent. The third respondent prepared the proposals and submitted the same to the second respondent, who forwarded the same to the first respondent. The application of the petitioner was submitted on 22.01.2004 by paying the amount of Rs.5000/- towards processing fee. The second respondent forwarded his application to the third respondent on 03.02.2004. After receipt of the proposal from the third respondent, the technical officers of the third respondent inspected the site, examined the matter and forwarded the same to the first respondent. The third respondent, by letter dated 27.03.2004, forwarded the proposal to the first respondent for appropriate orders. The first respondent did not take any action but issued a Memo on 14.02.2005 calling for objections and suggestions from the general public. The Government addressed several letters to the third respondent for payment of conversion charges by the petitioner. The last of such letter is dated 23.03.2007, in response to which the third respondent issued a notice to the petitioner on 31.03.2007 calling upon him to pay an amount

¶6

of Rs.82,039/-, duly deducting an amount of Rs.5,100/- paid by him earlier as processing fee, towards conversion charges in favour of the third respondent. It appears that the said notice was served on the petitioner on 05.06.2007 and the petitioner paid the amount through demand draft dated 15.06.2007. In the meanwhile, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.439 dated 13.06.2007 revising the rates for payment of conversion charges, as a result of which, the third respondent by notice in Roc.No.C3/232/2004/834 dated 14.06.2007, directed the petitioner to pay the difference amount of Rs.67,070/- for processing the case further. The petitioner submitted a representation on 27.06.2007 to the third respondent requesting to drop the proceedings under notice dated 14.06.2007 and pass necessary orders for conversion of the change of land use from agriculture to commercial. Thereafter, the third respondent issued notice in Roc.No.C3/232/2004 dated 06.07.2007 informing the petitioner that his representation was not considered and also informed to pay the balance development charges of Rs.61,970/within seven days. Challenging the same, the present Writ Petition was filed.

¶7

The only point that arises for consideration is whether the petitioner has to pay the conversion charges as per the new Government Order, which came into existence on 13.06.2007, or as per the rates prevailing as on the date of his application or the draft notification issued by the Government.

¶8

The power to modify the land use is vested with the Government under Section 12 of the Andhra Pradesh Urban Areas (Development) Act, 1975 (for short, the Act). No such modification shall be made without inviting the objections under Sub-section (3) of Section 12 of the Act. The Urban Development Authority (Hyderabad) Rules, 1977 (for short, the Rules), were made in exercise of powers conferred under Section 58(1) of the Act. Rule 15 thereof deals with the fee payable on application for permission of the development of land. As per the said

¶9

Rule, no application for permission under Section 14 shall be deemed valid unless the person giving an application has paid to the authority, in advance the fees determined by the authority from time to time for the grant of permission, and a receipt in token of payment of such fee is attached to the application. Sub-rule (5) of Rule 15 of the Rules says that any person who intends to develop or change any use of any land or building under the provisions of the Act shall, along with the application for permission on a prescribed form, pay the development charges levied at the rates specified in the Table under sub-rule (6) to the authority.

¶10

Section 14 of the Act deals with application for permission and sub-section (5) thereof says that if, within ninety days after the receipt of any application made under this Section for permission, or of any information or further information required under rules or regulations, the authority has neither granted nor refused its permission, such permission shall be deemed to have been granted and the applicant may proceed to carry out the development.

¶11

The fee prescribed under Rule 15 of the Rules is payable for the applications filed under Section 14 of the Act. The longer period of ninety days is prescribed in the said Section and a decision has to be taken by the authority within the said period. In the instant case, the petitioner submitted the application on 22.01.2004 and no decision was taken on the said application for three years. However, the notice dated 31.03.2007 was issued to the petitioner asking him to pay an amount of Rs.82,039/- duly deducting an amount of Rs.5,100/- which was communicated only on 05.06.2007. The petitioner accordingly paid the amount on 15.06.2007. Between the notice dated 31.03.2007 and the date of making payment, the new Government Order has come enhancing the rates of conversion charges and now the petitioner is asked to pay the amount as per the new G.O.Ms.No.439 dated 13.06.2007. As already stated above, the petitioner’s application was

¶12

pending for more than three years and the petitioner cannot be found fault for not paying the amount, as no intimation was given by the third respondent or by the first respondent. The notice was issued to the petitioner only on 05.06.2007. He paid the amount on 15.06.2007 according to the said notice. The third respondent cannot demand the petitioner to pay the amount as per the new Government Order by taking the advantage of the delay in processing the application of the petitioner and giving it retrospective effect.

¶13

In the circumstances, the notices in Roc.No.C3/232/2004/834 dated 14.06.2007 and Roc.No.C3/232/2004 dated 06.07.2007 issued by the third respondent are set aside, and respondent Nos.1 to 3 are directed to process the application of the petitioner for final notification by taking the amount paid by the petitioner pursuant to the notice dated 31.03.2007.

¶14

The Writ Petition is, accordingly, allowed. The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶15

________________________________ (A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO, J) 01.12.2014 vs

Samala Sadanandam v. The Government of a.P,. Rep. by its Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Samala Sadanandam v. The Government of a.P,. Rep. by its Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/s Jairaj Ispat Ltd. Vs The C.P.D.C.of A.P Ltd.

Mohd. Khaja Pasha Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh,Rep. by the

Sri Satyanarayana Talkies Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

K.A.P. Thrimurthulu Vs The Director of Town and Country Planning

Smt. M.Govindamma, Vs The Commissioner

Mr.Mirza Dilwar baig Vs The Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad,Ranga Reddy