Dismissed

M/s.Hpr Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd., v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC5 Oct 2015WP/32862/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Common order disposing of multiple writ petitions challenging the imposition of No Objection Certificate (NOC) requirements under the 2006 Act for land use. The court confirmed a predecessor order affirming that clearance under the 2006 Act is a condition precedent, except for land converted before 2006.

What did the court decide?

The batch of writ petitions and pending miscellaneous petitions are disposed of with confirmation of the order dated 28.08.2015 in W.A.No.702 of 2010.

M/s.Hpr Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd., Vs The State of Andhra… — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2015)

¶1

HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DILIP B. BHOSALE AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE S.V. BHATT

¶2

W.P.Nos.13252, 13709 OF 2009, 103, 4428, 5664, 7851, 7940, 8698, 8702, 17609, 21604, 27520, 29686, 32979 OF 2010, 15623, 20944, 21678, 25707, 29290 OF 2011, 7715 OF 2012, 11513, 32862 OF 2013 & 40001 OF 2014, 6330, 13451 & 21865 OF 2015

¶3

COMMON ORDER: (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice S.V.Bhatt)

¶4

Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in this batch of writ petitions, learned Government Pleader and the learned standing counsel appearing for the Urban Development Authority.

¶5

The petitioners in this batch of writ petitions challenge the condition to get No Objection Certificate (NOC) imposed by the Urban Development Authority and/or the applicability of the Andhra Pradesh Agricultural (Conversion for Non-Agricultural Purposes) Act, 2006 to the areas covered by the A.P. Urban Areas (Development) Act, 1975.

¶6

This Court, through common order dated 28.08.2015, has considered similar issue in W.A.No.702 of 2010 and batch and confirmed the common order dated 28.04.2010 in W.P.No.26688 of 2007 and batch passed by a learned Single Judge. The relevant portion of the order dated 28.08.2015 reads thus:

¶7

“The Urban Development Authority construing strictly gets jurisdiction to entertain an application for which conversation tax is paid under Act 3 of 2006 and the NOC can be justified by this reason as well. The insistence at best can be treated as a concomitant and the authorities can certainly insist upon NOC from applicant for processing the application made under Section 14 of Act 1 of 1975. For the view taken on questions (i), (ii) and (iii), no exception could be found against the impugned common order dated 28.04.2010. For the reason stated above, the appeals are without merit and accordingly dismissed.”

¶8

Through our order dated 28.08.2015 in W.A.No.702 of 2010 and

¶9

batch, we have confirmed the common order dated 28.04.2010 in W.P.No.26688 of 2007 and batch and have disposed of the batch as follows:

¶10

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
b )	the land has been put to non-
	agricultural use before the 2006 Act
	came into force, such clearance/
	permission shall not be insisted.
c)	Conversion of land into Non-agricultural
	use under the provisions of Act 3 of
	2006 is necessary even if the land is
	covered by Master Plan and sanction of
	layout by the Development Authority
	under the provisions of Act 1 of 1975.

¶11

The learned counsel appearing for all the parties admit that the batch of writ petitions is covered by the common order dated 28.08.2015 and the writ petitions are accordingly disposed of.

¶12

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, also stand disposed of.

¶13

_____________________ DILIP B.

¶14

BHOSALE, ACJ

¶15

________________ S.V.BHATT, J Date: 05.10.2015 Lrkm

M/s.Hpr Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd., v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s.Hpr Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd., 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shaik Mohammed Ali, Vs Vijayawada, Guntur, Tenali, Mangalagiri

Avvaru Mallikarjuna Rao S/o. Kotaiah Vs Munagapati Lakshmi Narasimha Rao, S/o. Govindu

Bandaru Janardhan Rao, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Pili Manikyala Rao Vs The Land Acquisition Officer and Revenue Divisional

M/s. S.V. Properties and Developers represented by its Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Mr. Ravinder Kumar, Correspondent of M/s. Sri Raja Vs Regional Transport Officer