Held that betterment charges demanded from petitioners were liable in view of revised estimations post-1981 and earlier payments being ad-hoc. Writ petition dismissed with time granted for balance payment.
Petition dismissed with three months time granted to pay balance betterment charges.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO
W.P. No.22730 of 2007
ORDER:
The Municipal Corporation, Hyderabad issued a Notification dated 13.03.1974 inviting applications from general public for registration for owning individual residential buildings in the proposed HUDCO Housing Colony at Amberpet for different categories. 642 persons belonging to 3 categories (EWS, LIG and MIG) applied for allotment of houses under the scheme duly paying the prescribed EMD amount. Of the applicants, 374 applicants constituted a Society called as ‘Bagh Amberpet Welfare Society’ in the year 1981. In 1981, all the 374 members paid land value to the MCH for the proposed house sites. Society was communicated vide letter dated 21.05.1982 to remit a sum of Rs.83,658.19 towards development charges and by a letter dated 29.05.1982, a sum of Rs. Rs.13,36,000/- towards betterment charges for all its members. The society paid the said amount and thereafter MCH dropped the HUDCO scheme and decided to allot plots only to the members of the society, leaving the construction of houses on their plots to the members. The State Government had accorded administrative sanction for acquiring Ac.22.00 of land for the proposed construction of Houses under HUDCO scheme in the Batakammakunta land of Bagh Amberpet vide G.O.Ms.No.55, M.A, dt. 23.02.1974. A draft declaration under Section 6 of Land Acquisition Act was issued, after a Notification under 4 (1) of the Act and dispensing with 5-A Enquiry, by publishing the same in A.P.Gazette Part I, dt. 25.05.1978 for an extent of Ac.20.33 gts. When there were some disputes with regard to the land, the matter came up to Hon’ble Supreme Court.
After the disposal of the case by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, a committee was constituted as per G.O.Rt.No.310 M.A, dated 22.05.2000 and the committee decided to reduce the original proposed allotment to different categories in order to accommodate the members of the Tulasi Cooperative Society, which was a party to the litigation before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Thereafter, notices were issued to the petitioners by the second respondent dated 04.06.2007 demanding collection of development and betterment charges, which are as follows:
EWS- Rs.20,640/- each LIG – Rs.30,960/- each & MIG – Rs.41,280/- each
Challenging the collection of betterment charges evenafter payment of betterment charges earlier, the present Writ Petition was filed.
The only point that arise for consideration in this Writ Petition is whether the petitioners are liable to pay betterment charges now eventhough they paid betterment charges in the year 1981 when the plots were allotted to them ?
The learned Standing Counsel for the respondents submits that out of 374 allotees, except the petitioners, remaining members paid the betterment charges and in view of the Writ Petition pending in this Court, the respondents are unable to collect the betterment charges from the petitioners. This Court by Order dated 27.11.2007 directed the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 to register the plots allotted to the petitioners, subject to the condition that the petitioner shall pay 50% of the additional betterment charges with an undertaking before them that they will pay the balance amount along with interest @ 12% p.a., if they could not succeed in the present Writ Petition.
The learned counsel for the petitioners drew the attention of this Court to the Letter dated 29.05.1982 issued by the then Special Officer of the second respondent seeking collection of betterment charges at Rs.20/- per square yard. A perusal of the letter indicates that the said betterment charges were calculated on the basis of adhoc estimation and the present letter dated 04.06.2007 was issued to the petitioners directing them to pay the balance amount of betterment charges eventhough they paid betterment charges earlier. The counter affidavit filed by the respondents indicate that in coordination with the society members, the estimate was prepared by the Executive Engineer, GHMC vide letter dated 07.05.2007 estimating an amount of Rs.195.208 lakhs towards betterment charges to be collected from the beneficiaries of Bagh Amberpet Welfare Society and it is as follows:
Estimation submitted by HMWS & SB
1. Water supply Pipe Lines - Rs. 50.338 lakhs 2. Sewer Pipe Lines - Rs. 43.05 lakhs ------------------Sub Total : Rs.93,338 Lakhs --------------------
Estimation submitted by APTRANSCO & GHMC
3. Laying of roads, streetlights and Avenue planation : Rs.83.87 Lakhs 4. Fencing of Open Places Earmarked for parks : Rs.17.95 lakhs ------------------Sub Total : Rs.101.82 lakhs.
------------------Grand Total: Rs.195.208 Lakhs
The counter further states that out of total 365 plots allotted, 350 plots have been registered to the alottees and 332 alottees have paid betterment charges in the year 2007 as stated above. The betterment charges paid earlier were on adhoc basis and now the betterment charges are calculated in coordination with the society members and an estimation was prepared estimating an amount of Rs.195.208 lakhs towards betterment charges. Accordingly, the amount is demanded from the petitioners as well as others. Out of 365 plots, which were allotted, 332 allottees have already paid betterment charges. The betterment charges were calculated in coordination with the society members only. In the circumstances, the action of the 2nd respondent in demanding the betterment charges cannot be held illegal.
Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. The petitioners had already paid 50% of the amount demanded charges pursuant to the orders of this Court and for the payment of balance amount, three months time is granted to the petitioners from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. No order as to costs.
Pending miscellaneous petitions in this Writ petition, if any, shall stand dismissed in consequence.
_________________ A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO , J
September 15, 2014. eha
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO
A.S.No.22730 of 2007
Dt. 15.09.2014
eha
2 issues framed by the court
Whether petitioners are liable to pay betterment charges now having paid betterment charges in 1981 when plots were allotted.
Whether the demand of betterment charges after an earlier payment is illegal in view of a revised estimation.
The Petitioners
The Municipal Corporation, Hyderabad
The Second Respondent
A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
