Section 2(e) , sec.13,14, 16,27 - 29 of the Andhra Pradesh Urban Areas (Development) Act,1975 Demand of fee for developmental charges for sub- division and for issuance of No-objection Certificate for sale of vacant land of the Petitioner in an extent of 4000.42 square meters out of 8174 square meters. Hence the writ = High court partly allowed the writ directing the respondent no. 2 to collect only half of the extent that was sold but not on total site as in the remaining half already factory was in existence and directed to refund the balance amount from the deposit received by the respondent as per stay orders = R.G.S.G.Karyalaya, rep. by its proprietor T.Srinu ....petitioner The Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Limited, represented by its Managing Director and another .... Respondents = published in http://judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/qrydisp.aspx?filename=10563

Section 2(e) , Sec.13,14,16, 27 - 29 of the
Andhra Pradesh Urban Areas (Development) Act,1975
Demand of fee for developmental charges for sub- division and for issuance of No-objection Certificate for sale of vacant land of the Petitioner in an extent of 4000.42 square meters out of 8174 square meters. Hence the writ =
 High court partly allowed the writ directing the respondent no. 2 to collect only half of the extent that was sold but not on total site as in the remaining half already factory was in existence and directed to refund the balance amount from the deposit received by the respondent as per stay orders =
whether charging an amount of Rs.10/-
per square meter based on the measurement of the entire land is justified in the
circumstances or not? =
Admittedly, a factory was established in the land
originally purchased and an extent of 4000.42 sq.mts remained vacant and sought
to be sold to some third party by the Petitioner. 
The development, if any, would
take place only in respect of the vacant land but not to the land over which the
factory was already constructed.
 In the case of material change to the said
factory, the authorities would definitely insist for payment of the
developmental charges again and it is unjust and arbitrary to calculate the
amount of developmental charges on the total extent of land of 8174 sq.mts in
respect of the land of 4000.42 sq.mts now proposed to be sold. 
The Respondents
can collect the development charges only on the extent of the land proposed to
be sold but not on the total extent of the land purchased by the Petitioner from
the Respondents originally.

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO              

W.P. No.11937 OF 2004  

22-11-2013

R.G.S.G.Karyalaya, rep. by its proprietor T.Srinu ....petitioner                      
       

The Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Limited, represented
by its Managing Director and another .... Respondents

Counsel for the petitioner :  Smt.P.Anjana Devi

Counsel  for the Respondents:Sri R.Subba Rao
                              Sri E.Madan Mohan Rao
                              Sri P.Roy Reddy  


<Gist :

>Head Note:

?Cases referred:

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO          

W.P.NO.11937 OF 2004  

ORDER:-

        In this writ petition the Petitioner challenges the order dated 28-06-2004
passed by the 2nd Respondent demanding an amount of Rs.81,740/- towards   
developmental charges for sub- division and for issuance of No-objection
Certificate for sale of vacant land of the Petitioner in an extent of 4000.42
square meters out of 8174 square meters.

02.     The Petitioner earlier filed W.P.No.17927 of 2003 for almost the self-same
relief but challenging the letter dated            25-06-2003 demanding the
subdivision fee and burnt electrical meter charges for issuing No-objection
Certificate (NOC). This court disposed of the said Writ Petition by order dated
09-04-2004 noticing that there was no basis for demanding an amount of
Rs.81,740/-, set aside the proceedings dated 25-06-2003 leaving it open to the
Respondents to levy the said amount by quantifying the same in accordance with
the applicable guidelines in this regard. It was also directed that while fixing
the said amount, the Respondents are also directed to consider the plea of the
Petitioner that the levy is to be in accordance with the G.O.Ms.No.150, dated
27-02-2001.

03.     The brief facts of the case are that
 the Petitioner is a small scale
industry manufacturing Ayurvedic medicines and the factory is situated at
Gurrampalem, Pendurthy Mandal, Visakhapatnam. 
The Petitioner purchased an extent   
of 8174 sq.mts from the Respondent situated at industrial development area in
Gurrampalem, Pendurthy Mandal, Visakhapatnam in Sy.No.175 and 178 under a     
registered sale deed dated 10-12-2002 for a sale consideration of Rs.2,05,921-50
ps. 
Thereafter, a factory was established and is still running. When it was
running in heavy losses and there was pressure to repay the loans by Bank of
Baroda, Visakahpatnam branch, the Petitioner decided to sell half of the land
purchased by it i.e., 4000.42 sq.mts which is lying vacant after construction of
the factory. 
The Petitioner addressed number of letters for issuing NOC for the
sale of the land and when there was delay the Petitioner borrowed amounts from
private sources and discharged the debt of the Bank of Baroda.
 After prolonged
correspondence, the 2nd Respondent issued a letter dated 25-06-2003 directing
the Petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.81,740/- towards process fee for approval of
subdivision of plot Nos.24 & 25 for issuing NOC.  The Petitioner submitted a
detailed representation on 26-06-2003 and when there was no decision of the
Respondents and there was demand from the prospective purchaser for return of
the advance amount, the Petitioner filed W.P.No.17927 of 2003 and the same was
disposed off on 09-04-2004 as aforesaid. Evenafter disposal of the Writ
Petition, when there was no response from the Respondents, the Petitioner filed
C.C.No.739 of 2004 for punishing the Respondents for wilful disobedience of the
order of this court dated 09-04-2004 and thereafter the 2nd Respondent passed
the impugned order dated 28-06-2004 demanding an amount of Rs.81,740/- towards
developmental charges for subdivision fee, when in the earlier letter dated 26-
05-2003 the reason shown was process for approval of subdivision of plot Nos.24
and 25. Challenging the said order, the present writ petition is filed.

04.     This court granted interim suspension of the impugned notice for a period
of two weeks on 14-07-2004 and later on              14-12-2004 directed the
Respondents to issue NOC for sale of 4000.42 sq.mts of site in plot Nos.24 and
25 to enable sale of the said land by the Petitioner to M/s.Simhagiri Milk Food
Private Limited on condition of the Petitioner depositing an amount of
Rs.81,740/- towards developmental charges, but subject to the result of the writ
petition and without prejudice to the contentions urged in the writ petition.

05.     No counter-affidavit has been filed in the present writ petition. But the
learned counsel for the Respondents advanced arguments on the basis of the
counter filed in W.P.No.17927 of 2003.

06.     Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner and Standing Counsel for the
Respondents.

07.     The learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the request for NOC
does not attract developmental charges since the area was already developed by
the date of sale. Further, it is contended that the Petitioner already paid the
developmental charges initially at the time of purchase of the entire land of
8174 sq.mts and since no further development involves in the sale of half of the
said land, the demand for payment of the developmental charges again is
arbitrary. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the Petitioner
that demand of an amount of Rs.81,740/- @ Rs.10/- per square meter based on the 
measurements of the entire land for the sale of half of the originally purchased
land is unreasonable and arbitrary.

08.     On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel for the Respondents
contends that the powers of the Urban Development Authorities were delegated to
the Respondents vide G.O.Ms.No.665, Municipal Administration and Urban
Development Department, dated 19-12-1996 and hence the Respondents are competent    
to impose developmental charges and the charges demanded are as per the rates  
fixed in G.O.Ms.No.51, MA&UDD, dated 05-02-1996 for the areas outside Municipal 
Corporations/Municipalities in respect of conversion of land from vacant to
industrial use.
He drew the attention of this court to Section 2(e) of the
Andhra Pradesh Urban Areas (Development) Act,1975 (for brevity "the Act"), which
reads as follows:--
        Sec.2 Definitions:-- In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires:-
        (a)....
        (b)...
        (c)...
        (d)..
        (e) "development" with its grammatical variations means the carrying out
of all or any of the works contemplated in a master plan or zonal development
plan referred to in this Act, and the carrying out of building, engineering,
mining or other operations in, on, over or under land, or the making of any
material change in any building or land and includes re-development.
Provided ..........................................
09.     A perusal of Section 2(e) of the Act shows that the word "development" is
given a broad meaning including within its purview the "re-development" also.
The proviso indicates certain operations or uses of land which are not deemed to
involve development of the land and the sale of the vacant land for the purpose
of future industrial operation is not one of the exempted categories. Further,
Section 16 of the Act exempts the application of the provisions to certain
activities. As per Sec.13(4) of the Act,  in respect of the activities other
than those mentioned in Section 16, every person or body including a department
of the Government shall only undertake the activity of the development of the
land after permission for such development has been obtained in writing from the
authority in accordance with the provisions of the Act.  Under Sub-section 7 of
Section 13 of the Act no development of land shall be undertaken or carried out
unless approval of sanction for such development has been obtained in writing
from the local authority concerned (APIIC in the instant case). The procedure
for making an application is provided in Section 14 of the Act and sub-section 2
thereof says that the said application should be accompanied by such fee as may
be prescribed. Section 27 of the Act empowers the authority to levy charges on
the institution or use or change of use of land or building or development of
any land or building for which permission is required under the Act. Section 28
of the Act provides for rates of development and Section 29 of the Act provides
for assessment and recovery of development charges. The Urban Development  
Authority (Hyderabad) Rules,1977  which were framed under Rule 15 deal with the
fee payable on application for permission of development of land.

10.     Hence a conjoint reading of the provisions of the Act and Rules made
thereunder make it clear that no development of the land shall take place
without the permission of the local authority concerned and the local authority
can demand fee for the said purpose. 
The Urban Development Authority (Hyderabad) 
Rules, 1975 came into force from 21-04-1977 and need was felt to enhance the
rates of developmental charges in 1995. 
Accordingly G.O.Ms.No.51, M.A. dated 05- 
02-1996 was issued fixing the developmental charges to be levied under Section
28 of the Act read with Rule 15(6) of the Urban Development Authority Rules,
1975.
 According to the said order, in respect of the areas out side Municipal
Corporation/Municipalities for conversion of land from vacant to industrial use
a rate @ Rs.10/- per square meter was proposed. 
The Respondents accordingly
directed the Petitioner for payment of Rs.81,740/- in respect of piece of the
land to the extent of 4000.42 sq.mts which is sought to be sub-divided and sold
to another in order to process further action for issuance of approval for
subdivision of the land by the Corporation.
In view of the earlier orders of
this Court, the Respondents were careful enough to pass a detailed order.
Howeever it was stated that G.O.Ms.No.150 dated 27-2-2001 is not applicable for
the purpose of subdivision of lands in sanctioned layout plan which falls under
the jurisdiction of Urban Development Authority.
 Hence, in view of the
provisions of the Act and Rules made thereunder it cannot be held that the
Respondents are incompetent to collect the fee nor the act of selling the
balance vacant land originally purchased by the Petitioner for industrial
purpose would not come within the definition of  "development".
 A reading of the
provisions make it clear that any activity of causing material change in any
building or land including re-development would come within the definition of
"development" and the person who applies to the authorities seeking permission
has to pay the prescribed fee.

11.     The next question that remains is
whether charging an amount of Rs.10/-
per square meter based on the measurement of the entire land is justified in the
circumstances or not? 
Admittedly, a factory was established in the land
originally purchased and an extent of 4000.42 sq.mts remained vacant and sought
to be sold to some third party by the Petitioner. 
The development, if any, would
take place only in respect of the vacant land but not to the land over which the
factory was already constructed.
 In the case of material change to the said
factory, the authorities would definitely insist for payment of the
developmental charges again and it is unjust and arbitrary to calculate the
amount of developmental charges on the total extent of land of 8174 sq.mts in
respect of the land of 4000.42 sq.mts now proposed to be sold. 
The Respondents
can collect the development charges only on the extent of the land proposed to
be sold but not on the total extent of the land purchased by the Petitioner from
the Respondents originally.
        Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is partly allowed and
the Respondents are directed to refund the proportionate amount to the
Petitioner since they have already collected an amount of Rs.81,740/- pursuant
to the interim order of this Court dated 14-12-2004 in WPMP No.28741 of 2004. No
costs.

_________________________  
A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO,J      
22-11-2013

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963) reads as follows: “For Specific performance of a contract: Three years The date fixed for the performance, or, if no such date is fixed, when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused.”= the apex Court in Ahmmadsahb Abdul Mila vs. Bibijan[1], wherein it was held that the date fixed for the performance of the contract should be a specified date in the calendar, and submitted that since no specified date in the calendar for performance of the contract is mentioned in the agreement of sale, the second limb of Article 54 of the Limitation Act is applicable. ; whether the suit is barred by limitation or not becomes a tribal issue and when there is a tribal issue, the lower Court ought not to have rejected the plaint at the threshold. In view of the same, order, dated 27-01-2012, in CFR.No.90 of 2012, passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, (FAC) Senior Civil Judge, Darsi, is, hereby, set aside. The Appeal is allowed accordingly.

Or.18, rule 17 and sec.151 C.P.C - petition filed for reopen and examination of the executant of Ex.A1 the sale deed to fill up the lacuna in evidence pointed out at the time of arguments not maintainable = Shaik Gousiya Begum. ..Petitioner Shaik Hussan and others.... Respondents = Published in http://judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/qrydisp.aspx?filename=10515

Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. plaintiff has to prove his title and possession how he came into possession prima faice , in the absence of the same, not entitled for interim injunction = The questions as to whether the lease deed was properly stamped and whether the stamp paper on which it was typed can be said to have been procured through proper source, need to be dealt with at the stage of trial.; The suit filed by the 1st respondent, is the one for injunction simplicitor in respect of an item of immovable property. He has also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. Basically, it was for the 1st respondent to establish that he is in possession and enjoyment of the property and that he derived the same through lawful means, particularly when he did not contend that he encroached upon the property.= assumptions of facts against to the contents of crucial third party by misreading the same- it is just un-understandable as to how the trial Court gathered the impression that Anuradha stated that there was a meeting of Board of Directors, where it was decided to lease the property to the appellants. - the trial Court itself was not clear as to whether the appellant is the lessee or a Manager or is working under any other arrangement. - The important findings that have a bearing upon the valuable rights of the parties cannot be based upon such uncertain and unverified facts. One of the cardinal principles in the matter of examining the applications filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC is that a party claiming that relief must come to the Court with clean hands. Prima facie, we find that there are no bona fides, much less consistency on the part of the 1st respondent, in his effort to get the order of temporary injunction. The trial Court has misread the evidence and misinterpreted the facts borne out by the record.