Telangana High Court
T.Radhakrishna Murty vs The Greater Hyderabad Municipal ... on 17 February, 2025
Author: K.Lakshman
Bench: K.Lakshman
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN
Writ Petition No.31119 of 2010
Order:
None appears for the petitioner.
2. Heard Mr. K.Ravi Mahender, learned Standing Counsel
appearing for respondents No.1 and 2 and Sri V.Narsimha Goud,
learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.3.
3. Petitioner herein is claiming that he is the absolute owner and
possessor of land admeasuring Acs.1.20 guntas in Survey Nos.162
and 163 of Yapral Village, Ranga Reddy District. He has submitted
an application for building permission on 12.10.2010. However, vide
Lr.No.37016/12/10/2010 dated 12.11.2010, respondent No.2 has
been insisting for production of land conversion certificate from
revenue authorities for release of the sanction plan and grant of
permission for construction of building in the said land.
4. The aforesaid issue is no more a res integra.
5. This Court disposed of a batch of writ petitions and a Division
Bench dismissed batch of writ appeals filed challenging the common
::2::
order dated 28.04.2010 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court
in W.P.Nos.26688 of 2007 and batch.
6. By the aforesaid order, learned Single Judge held that 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 Andhra Pradesh Agricultural
(Conversion for Non-Agricultural Purposes) Act, 2006 (for short 'the
2006 Act') as a condition precedent for releasing of layouts and that if
the land has been put to non-agricultural use before the 2006 Act
came into force, such clearance/permission shall not be insisted.
7. Paragraphs 42, 43 and 51 of the Division Bench judgment are
relevant and the same are extracted below:
"From the above, it is clear that a person
interested in development of a land/plot/building is
required to pay the above development charges to
the authority under Act 1 of 1975. The levy of
development charges is for institution of use i.e., the
notified use in the zonal development plan,
conversion fee for change of development use from
residential to commercial or as the case may be.
Likewise, conversion of land use from recreation to
::3::
residential, residential to commercial etc., is
provided subject to payment of development
charges as applicable to a category. Therefore, the
main object of Act 1 of 1975 is for development of
urban areas according to master plan/zonal
development plan and provide for matters ancillary
thereto. The short title of Act 1 of 1975 further
reinforces the scope and object of Act 1 of 1975 as
an enactment intended for planned development of
notified urban areas. Act 1 of 1975 defines
development and provides for planned development
of urban areas. To remove difficulties in
implementation of Act 1 of 1975, a few
development activities are removed from
development area/urban area together with the
obligation to apply for permission under Sections
13, 14 and 15 of Act 1 of 1975 and this would go to
show that the Act is primarily concerned with
development of "urban area" in accordance with
master plan/zonal development plan. In the process,
the development charges are paid for institution of
use or change of land use, and the payment of
development fees are attributable towards
development charges payable to an authority under
the Act by a developer of building/land etc., as the
::4::
case may be, but not a conversion fee as contended
the appellants.
Re-stated with emphasis, in our considered view,
Act 1 of 1975 defines development, declares urban
areas for development and provides for civic survey
and preparation of zonal development plan by the
authority. A person, who undertakes either
construction of a building or development of land, is
required to pay development fee under Sections 14
and 27 of Act 1 of 1975 to the Urban Development
Authority for undertaking development as provided
in the zonal development plan. In a given case, if on
the application of a developer, change of land user is
granted through a notification under Section 13 or
Section 15, such change of land use enables the
applicant to take up development contrary to
notified master pan/zonal development plan already
notified under Section 7 of the Act. Thereafter, the
prohibition contained under Section 15 of the Act is
not attracted to such development. Therefore,
notification under Act 1 of 1975 from any view
point cannot be treated as a conversion of land from
agriculture purpose to non-agriculture purpose.
......
::5::
As we have confirmed the common order
dated 28.04.2010, we are inclined to dispose of writ
petitions as follows:
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."
8. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents, on
instructions, would submit that no Special Leave Petition is filed
challenging the aforesaid Division Bench judgment and it had attained
finality.
::6::
9. In the light of the same, petitioner is not entitled to any relief,
much less the relief sought for in the present writ petition.
Impugned proceedings dated 12.11.2010 of respondent No.2 are in
consonance with the aforesaid order of the Division Bench.
10. Therefore, this Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed and is,
accordingly, dismissed. No costs.
Related interlocutory applications, pending if any, stand closed.
_______________
K.LAKSHMAN, J
Date: 17-02-2025
LUR
