Disposed

M/s. Ganapathi Educational Society, v. The Warangal Municipal Corporation

Telangana HC22 Jan 2016WP/25820/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging a condition to obtain a No Objection Certificate imposed by the Urban Development Authority. Relying on a common order from August 28, 2015, the court held that the petition is not maintainable in this instance.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed as it is covered by a common order dated August 28, 2015.

M/s. Ganapathi Educational Society, Vs The Warangal… — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2016)

¶1

HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DILIP B. BHOSALE

¶2

AND

¶3

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE S.V. BHATT

¶4

WRIT PETITION No. 25820 OF 2009

¶5

22-01-2016

¶6

Between:

¶7

M/s. Ganapathi Educational Society, H.No.19-3-1/1, Rangasaipet, Warangal, rep., by its Secretary K. Bhaskar Reddy, S/o. narsimha Reddy, aged about 40 years

¶8

… Petitioner

¶9

And

¶10

The Warangal Municipal Corporation, Warangal, rep., by its City Planner and others

¶11

… Respondents

¶12

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

¶13

WRIT PETITION No. 25820 OF 2009

¶14

ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice S.V. Bhatt)

¶15

Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader and the learned standing counsel appearing for the Urban Development Authority. The petitioner in this writ petition challenges 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.

¶16

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 28.04.2010 reads thus:

¶17

“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

¶18

merit and accordingly dismissed.”

¶19

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:

¶20

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

¶21

b) the land has been put to non-agricultural use before the 2006 Act came into force, such clearance/ permission shall not be insisted.

¶22

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.

¶23

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

¶24

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, also stand disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶25

_________________________ DILIP B. BHOSALE, ACJ

¶26

S.V. BHATT, J

¶27

22-01-2016 ks

M/s. Ganapathi Educational Society, v. The Warangal Municipal Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. Ganapathi Educational Society, v. The Warangal Municipal Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sangamreddy Sanyasi Rao, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh rep., by

Smt. K. Khamarunnisa Begum, Vs The Commissioner

Atmakuri Dharma Reddy, Vs The Joint Collector

Manupati Nagamani Vs The State of A.P.

The Principal, Vs L. Vaishnavi

G Sudharshan Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh