Common order disposing of writ petitions challenging the requirement of NOC under the 2006 Agricultural Land Act and its applicability to areas under the 1975 Urban Development Act. The court disposed of the matters by subsuming them under a prior common order.
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.
HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DILIP B. BHOSALE
AND
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR
WRIT PETITION No.6150 of 2012, 6025, 10013, 23473, 24869, 28709, 37444 of 2013 &38199 of 2014
Dt:02.11.2015
Between:
M/s.Sukhibhava Builders & Developers (P) Ltd.
… Petitioners
And
The District Collector and others.
… Respondents
HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DILIP B. BHOSALE
AND
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR
WRIT PETITION No.6150 of 2012, 6025, 10013, 23473, 24869, 28709, 37444 of 2013 &38199 of 2014
COMMON ORDER: (per the Hon’ble the Acting Chief Justice Dilip B. Bhosale)
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.
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 Land (Conversion for Non-Agricultural Purposes) Act, 2006 to the areas covered by the A.P. Urban Areas (Development) Act, 1975.
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:
“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.”
Through our order dated 28.08.2015 in W.A.No.702 of 2010 and 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:
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.
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.
Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, also stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
DILIP B. BHOSALE, ACJ
S.RAVI KUMAR, J
Dt:02.11.2015
kdl
M/s.Sukhibhava Builders & Developers (P) Ltd.
The District Collector
DILIP B. BHOSALE
S. RAVI KUMAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
