The court disposed of multiple writ petitions challenging the NOC requirement under the 2006 Act and its applicability to the 1975 Act, holding they were covered by the earlier common order dated 28.08.2015.
The writ petitions were disposed of as covered by the common order dated 28.08.2015.
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.V. BHATT
W.P.Nos.7963 OF 2007, 4852 OF 2009, 9199, 23457, 26362, 32392, 35595 OF 2012, 26229, 30369 OF 2013, 12271, 13215, 14375, 15019, 15753, 16455, 18820, 28720, 29307, 30243, 24506, 34709, 36135 &
39445 OF 2014
COMMON ORDER: (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice S.V.Bhatt)
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 (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:
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 pending, also stand disposed of.
DILIP B. BHOSALE, ACJ
S.V.BHATT, J
Date: 09.10.2015
Lrkm
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ petitions are covered by the common order dated 28.08.2015 and could be disposed of accordingly.
PETITIONERS
URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
DILIP B. BHOSALE
S.V. BHATT
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
