O sq. m. The devclopcr can also opt for developtlg onh Il v. l)lots in lieu of LIG Housing. d) ln case rt is trot foun

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the r:i 'cumstances stated rn the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court n: y be pleased to direct the respondents to consider the request of the petitioner fot .rermission to develop on its own an extent of 3,632 sq.yards of Iand of given by p,: itioner towards HADA area on payment of 1.5 times of market value and also to t 3rmit it to develop an extent of 3,657 sq.yards of land meant for the EWS F urposes in terms of G.O.NIs.No,527 IVA & UD (ll) Department dt.31.07.200i1 pertaining to permit No.6/layout/HADA dt.12.06.2008 in file No.'12175l layoul /HADA/ 2006 of the petitioner towards its land situated in Sy.No .28 (P), 29( )), 30(P) & 3i (P) of Chintapallyguda (V), lbrahimpatnam(tr/ ), Ranga Reddy Distri,:t without reference to the proceedings of Respondents 'l & 2 dt.22.11 .2012 and O'' 11.2012 respectively. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI RAJAGOPALLAVAN TA\1 Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 3: SRI V.SIDDARTHT\ GOUD FOR SRI V.NARASIMHA GOLII), SC FOR HMDA Counsel for the Respondent No.2: cP FOR MUNCIPAL AD ilN AND URBA,N DEV The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO W.P.No.3934 of 2O13 ORDER: The instant Writ Petitior-r is liled for the following reliefs: "a) Declaing lhe Letter No.12175/ Layout/ HAMA/ HMDA/ 2006, dt.22.11.2012 i-s-sried bg tl'Le Respondent No.1 and also Letter No.17840/ I I / 2010'1 MA dt.07.11.2A12 of R2 relecting the request of Lhe pett[oner end ttot (lranltrLg sanction to the petttioners to deuelop ort its olL'n an extent of 3,632 sq. gards of larud giuen by llrc petitioners lor HADA area on palynent of 1.5 titnes of rnarket ualue atrd o.lso to deuelop otl its own an extent of 3,657 sq. gards of lanrcL nreant for lhe DWS Put.pose, irt tenns of G.O.Ms.No 567 MA & UD (l:) Depatltllent. c1t.31.07.2008, pertairing Lo the laAout pemtit No.l 21 75/ le!)out/ I IADA/ 2006 belongitrg to the Petitioners tor.uorcls tts lu(l. sihtated tt Su.No.28(I'), 29(P),30(P) & 31(P) of CltintapaLLggucla (V), Ibrahinpattnm (M), Ranga Redd!) Dlstrict, as bad itlegctt. ttrbitrary ancl riolatiue ol G.O.Ms.No.527 MA & UD (lt) De-p er1 ttt".tl I. dt. 3 1. 0 7. 2 0 0 L cutd No 6/ kqout/ HADA dt.12.06.2008 in b) Conseqllelltly. drect the responde.nts to grant sanctiott to the petlltotlers to deuelop otl ils oLutT on exLent of 3,632 sq. gards of lancl giuen b!,J the pctitiorlers for HADA area on payme)tt of 1.5 tines of nlerket uQlue and also to deuelop on its ouJn ott extent of l),657 sc1. rlarcls of lond rnea nt for the EWS putposes, in terms of O.O.Ms.No )67 MA & LID (lt) DePaftment, dt 31 07-2008 perlainitg to the laltout pennit No.6/ lagout/ HADA, dt.12.06.2008 in file No. 12175/ lallout/ LtADAi 2006 belongitg to the petitioners towords its Lancl stlnatecl irr SU.No.28(P), 29(P), 30(P) & 31(P) of chu la p all y g LtckL( V ), ll ) rahh p ot t1 o m( M ), R ang a Reddll D is t i cl c/ to pass sttcLL other orcler .. "

2. The case of the petitioners in brief is that l"t petitioner is a company registered under the provisiorls of Companies Act, 1956 and it is engaged in the business of real estate and developing land into plots. That, on 13.10.2006, the 1"t petitioner approached thc then Hyderabad Airport Development Authorit-"-(HADA) 3.t respondent (rvhich is nou' a functional agency 4 of HMDA- 1"t respondent), for approval of layotLt i r an extent of Acres 15.18 guntas in Sune,y No.2B(p), 29(p), .\ )(p) and 31(p) situated in Chintapatlyguda(V), Ibrahimpatnam(M) Ranga Reddy District. The HADA had sanctioned and rereased ;r tentative draft layoul uide layout permit No.6/lavout/I{ADA, dt. 1t2 06.007 in File No.12175/layout/ HADA/2006, for the total area ) 60083.28 sq. mtrs i.e., Acres 14.85 cents, as per the existing dr rft regulations in force, pending finalization of final regulatior:s, u-hich u,ere subsequently notified.

3. It is further contendecl b1. the pctitioners trilt as per the approved layout total plottecl area \\.as dirrrdcd into l lB plots apart from providing land for the amenities tou.ards roa,1 ,1, parks, etc., and out of the said plotted area, an e-\Lent of 363.2 sq.yards u,as kept aside as HADA area and 3657 sq. _rarcls was set apart lor development of LIG/trWS(being 5% + 5(tr, =1Ool, ol tl.re total land) as per the norms fixed by HADA as r,r,as in lorce at tl.r tt time.

4. It is further contencled that as thcre *rere la: .;e number of representations received from the land developers builders and others, an addendum notilication s,as issued uid_e G. ).Ms.No.527, dt.3i.07.2008, by subsrituting Regularion 30 anc 36 with the follolvin g, for G. O. Ms. No. 2 87, dt. 03. O 4.2OO8 : D "I Regulation 30 shall be substitu ted with the followins: 3o(ii) Minimum area & other requirement for Layout Development: al The minimum area lor l.i\ out development shall be 4 hectares_ Out of the total areas, 1096 of thc lzrnd shall be sct apart for open spaces for recreation and communitl pllrposes This \\,rll also include up to 2.5% Iand required lo bc spl al)arl for \or l.rl lllfr.rstructurc. b) From the dclelopablc ii|ca. 51'o ol area is lo be given Lo Hyderabad Airport Developmcnt Allthont\ free o[ cost for capita]ization towards provisron of Master Plan facihtres. Tltrs conrlitron is applicable onty to sites located outside Greatcr H-r rlcrabad Mur.ricipal Corporation limiLs. Thc orvner/cleveloper has rhe option of pa,ving .1.5 times the baslc value of such land to Hvdcrabad Irrtran Dcvclopment Authoritl'/ Hyderabad Airport Development ALlthont-\ rn lictr of such land to be given to Hvderabad Airporl De\elopnlcnr \trtltol'rl\'. c) At least 5"/o o[ rhc dc\elonal)le lan(i to be developed within the site lor Economicalh Wcaker Scctrorrs oI Societ5. (EWS) housing facilit,r. rvith maximum plot size ol 50 sr1. nr. rrn<l at least 5%o for Lorver Income Grorrp housing faciht\ r|ith rna-r nrr:n l)lot sizc of l0O sq. m. The devclopcr can also opt for developtlg onh Il\VS l)lots in lieu of LIG Housing. d) ln case rt is trot foun(l lcasrl)l(i to 1tr ovide the minimum 5% EWS and 5% LIG plots rrilhrn ltis sir( . the o\\ rrcr/(levr:loper is given option to develop the minimum recluircd nurnbcr ol. plols undcr both categories in anv land within 5 km. radrtrs oI rl.rc c\rstrns site with minimum BT road connectivity of l2 or. Alte rnati\ ( l\ . tlte orlrrcr'/rir_-vcloper may hand ove r cqutvalent land to I-{\'deraba(l Arrport Dcvclol)ment Authority for development of EWS/l,lG plots bv Ilrdcr':rlracl Airport Development Authoritv/ pul)lic agenc), \r'ithin 5 km ratlrus oI thc cxisling site. fI. Regulation 36 shalI be substituted with the followins:

36. Group Housing Schemes: i) In rcspcct ol GroLrp Ilotrsing lrrojccts (u,hich lncluded apartmcnL block/blocks, rolr irorrsinq. clLrster housing, mixed housing units, gate(l developmcnts and rcsrd( nlral cr.rclar.e s) in sites 4000 sq. m. and above out of the total srtc .lrca: a, the de\eloper shall set al)arr 3(',. of the land and give to Hyderabad Airport Developm(.lrr n utltont\ frcc of cost for capitalization tou,ards provision of Masrcr Plan facLlitrcs Thrs condition shall apply only to sites located outsrcle Grcarcr Hyderabad Municipal Corporation limrts. The orvner-/cler.elopcr h;rs tlre optron of paying 1_5 times the basic value of such land to H\(leral)a(l nirport Dcvelopment Authority in herL of such land to be grr en to II\dcrabad Airport Development Authority. b) nt least 5% of the roral unrts shall be set apart and developed for Economicaljr Weakcr S.-clro,rs oI Socictl. (EWS) d$,elling units Nitl.) ma-ximum plinth arca of 25 sq m, I 6 .I ir) i ii) c) At least 5% of the total unirs shall be set aparr anI developed for Lower Incornt: (irottlt (l-lC) dr{cthng Ltirits \\ith nraxinluo )lintl) area of 40 sq. mt; For providillg all above d\elling units .Lth the site, the own( r/dcv(:loper rs givt:n freeclonr to l)uild thcs( lnits in a separate block \\,ith separate access. In case rt is not foLlnd feasible br the o\\'ner//di,r oper to pror.ide the abovrr EWs eurd LIO drrr:llrng rLuits \\rthrn his srtr, ht: oi\ ner/developer is gr,.cn option ro develop the reqLlrr(,d number r f units under both catee,oli('s iri arrr Ian<l rritlrirr 5 knr radius oI il: ] exrsting site n,ith maxinlLlrn B'l' roacl col]rrecrir i[r of l2 nt Altr-'rnativcly, the o\\'ner/dcvcloper is grrcD optioll to hancl oreI the ( ( livaler)t land rvithitr 5 km rarlrus \\,itll mininrLlnl B'l' roil(l corlnectivit-\ )l 12 n to H]'derabad Airport Developmerlt AurhoriL\ fcrr lacrliraring de,. I ,pment of EWS/LIG housing Senant quarters constructed shatl be reckone(l t) rcquil c'mcnts in Group HorLsinrt Sciiemes. In cas , developments and rorv ItotLsitq, such rlualters sl i the nritin brrildrng and mar also be allo\rcd in thr, ( the total lcngth stt,lll nor e-rcr.crl L,.1,, oI Plol r r storicd slructure sherll bc allorrccl. -As an opriori L I and rorv housrng, thc I,l\l'S :rncl [-lCi clu i,]lr accorrlrnodated ln a separatc blocl< or itiocks. l:r Complexes, the ser\ranl (lrrarters rnt+ be r\'irl r provicled it is constlLlcted rvilh scltar-ate entrarn(e kitchcnettc a1n(l totlct facilir-\. Slrclt sef\ant clir,i t Lo bc rr-'ckont:tl as l,lWS Lrrrrts. ,\lt.lnlrtrrclr, tlrr: I.\ trnits rrr suclt colnl)lcxes can l)e acconuno(la[c(] Ll blocks. ,ards EWS housrng )[ gated community 1lrc detached from rr st lback provided Ith atnd or.rly singlc 3aterl devclopmen ts rg rrnits can bc casc of Residential r the same block iLnd $,ith separate :r s only r,t,ill qualify S arrrl LIG drvelling l sel)arate block or- III After al Requlatlpn 36 a ne-w Requlattpn Shell !g add,:,1 as follows 36 A. Incentives: Iu order 1o cncour.lgc social housirrg mrx rn IroLrsr. g ploJects and to augrnent the supl)lv ol DWS eirr(l LI(i Hous rg. the lbliL L,ing incentives shall be availablc to o\\'ners,/ developc rs: ;r) No lecs anci otlrer charqes s ill be lcvred l'or :_ ,\ S plors or du elling tur i1s: b) Orrll 2 5'.2,, o[ ltcs ancl plots,/drrelling u n its; orlrel clttrrges uil >e levicd for LIG c) In case ol alternati\e lancls are providecl l)\ c (ner/developer for EWS/ Ll(l horistng, tlterc \! rll bc autolnatlc c )j ersiot-t of land usc fr(rm <onservatron ro tesrrlcntritI Ltse'

5. [t is furthcr (]onrended that as per condition I r(c)1ii), in case, it is not feasible bv the o\\,t1er / d cveloper to prr,ride EWS/LIC du,elling units \\,iLhin the sile, o\\ ncr/cleveloper hErs, rliven option to F- N UIIIUIIIY (NIvITJAJ, HUIJA C. t -o_rnolsf x. TarnakS, Hyderabac r_,uvYtopmenl I " -r' 7 develop the required number of units under both categories in any land within 5 km radius of the existing site with minimum BT road connectivity of l2 m and altcrnatively, the owner/developer is given option to hand o'er rhe equivarent rand within 5 km radius with minimum BT road connectivity of 12m to HADA for facilitating development oi trWS/LIG housing.

6. It is further con tenclecl that uncler the provisions contained in Section 3-A of Andhra pradesh Urban Areas (Deveiopment) Act, 1975(for short .the Act, 1975,), the HADA was formed as a Special Area Development Authorir-r, uide G.O.Ms.No.352 MA dt.30.06.20O 1, by rn,hich ccrtain villages coming under Airport Safety Zones and Zonal restrictions for Hyderabad International Airport, Shamshabad, Rar-rga Redd_v District, which were earrier under the jurisdiction of Hvclerabad Urban Development Authority (HUDA), have now vested u.ith thc jurisdiction of HADA.

7. It is further contended that thc 2,.1 respondent initia-lly permitted the 3'a respondcnt to folrori. draft regurations tili finally approved by the Government in [erms of the provisions of the Act, 1975, and thereafter, the dralt la-r.out merged with the Final Master Plan and Regulatio.s uide G.O.Ms.No.2BZ, dt.03.04.2OOg and subsequentlv, uide G.O.Ms.No.527, dt.31.O7.2OOg. the earlier 'r,as .- 8 Regulation 30 framed in G.O.Ms.No.287, clt.03. )4.2008 was substituted. B. It is further contended that as the 2n(l respr,-rdent issued G.O.Ms.No.527, dt.31.07.2008, cleally substitutin! the existing Regulation 30 in G.O.Ms.No.287, the petitioners I r: errtitled lor the release of the land handed over to HADA arrd rlso the land earmalked as per the norms fixed in thc abovc GO.

9. [t is also conter-rded that though the pctrr r ners already expressed their u'illingness to pay 1 .5 times of tht mzu ket value for the release ol the land given to HADA lor de\'. ( pment on its o$'n al]d also othcr 5% lancl kept apart for d:'.'elopment of EWS/LIG, as contemplated in C.O.Ms.No.527, dt: .07.2008, by making several requests to the authorities, the l' rcspondent, referring to the communication of lhe 2"d respontl,' rt, ride letter dt.07.1 L2O12 rejected the petitioners' request. A1'p rievt:d by the said rejection order, the present Wnt Petition is filecl.

10. The respondent No.l liled counter denf ing th,' (rorrlcntion of the petitioners that GO.Ms.No527, dt.31.07.2008 nlds thc lield since inception of HADA, and ri ould contelrd t I at since the amendment to Iiegulation 30 is subordiuate lepii s zrtion, it rvi11 I come into force only prospectively and in any event, as the land in question has already been vested u,ith the then HADA, the question of returning the said land does not arise at this stage and that the government has righrl,v rejccted the petitioners' application for returning the land in question, and prayed to dismiss the writ petition

11. Heard Sri Rajagopallavan Tavi, Iearned counsel for the petitioners and Sri V.Siddartha Goud, representing Sri V.Narasimha Goud, learncd Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.1 and learned Governmctrt Pleader for Municipal Administration and Urban Dcvelopment appcaring for respondent No.2

12. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that though the petitioners given sanction as per Draft Regulations, which was revised and approved finally on 03.04.2008, once the Regulation 30 framed in G.O.Ms.No.2B7, dt.O3.04.2008 u'as substituted by issuing an addendum uide G.O.Ms.No.5B7, dt.31 .O7.2OOB, the Regulation 30 as substituted only holds Lhe lield since inception of HADA, ald thus, the petitioners u,ho intettd to take beneht of the said G.O.Ms.No.5B7, cannot be denicd on the ground that a draft layout in favour of the petitioners having been released even 10 - before the issuance of the said G.O.Ms.No.527 ancl contended that as the regulations were substituted by the adc endum GO, the same shall be retrospective in effect. i3. It is further contended by the counsel for r;etitioners that u,hile G.O.Ms.No.527, dt.31.07.2008 r,r,as issued or HADA area, likeq'ise G.O.Ms.No.526, dt.3l.OT.2OOB was also is sued for HUDA areas on the same footing and since it is a benr: icial regulation framed by the 2"l respondent by taking into co rsideration the difficult of the land developers, builders ancr other: ancl in vie*. of the directions o[ this Court in Wp. No. 1-lt 97 ol 200g, dt. I108 2008, the letter issued by the 1.t responc ent uide Lettcr No.17840/lll2OlO-t MA dt.O7.ll.2012, rejectinlg rhe request of the petitioners and not granting sanction to th: petilioners to develop an extent of 3,657 sq. yards oI lanc given by the petitioners for HADA are a on payment ol 1 .5 t I nes of market value, is ex focie illegal and is not in consor rr..nce wrth the subsequent G.O.Ms.No.527, dt.31.07.2008, u,l-i:h has been issued as an addendum substituting certain regr,.l rtions, ancl as such, the Go.Ms.No.527, dt.3l.o7.20oB, is appli ,able as ls in retrospective in nature, and thus, prayed to allos, tl-r.r u.r-it petition. 11

14. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel appearing for 1.t respondent, while reiterating the contents of the counter, stated that the Governments Orders are prospective in nature and thus, the addendum GO cannot be made applicable to the instant case, and thus, prayed to dismiss the rvrit petition. i5. The said stand of the learned Standing Counsel for HMDA was reiterated by the learned Government Plcadcr for Municipal Administration & Urban Development appearing for respondent No.2 and prayed to dismiss the u-rit petit6ion.

16. I have given earnest consideration to the submissions made by the counsel appearing on either side and perused the material on record. 17 . The only point that arises for consideralion ls that when once G.O.Ms.No.527 MA & UD (lr) Departmcnt, dt.31.07.2008 has been issued as an addendum to the original G.O.Ms.No.2B7 MA & UD (lr) Department, dt.03.04.2008, b1r substituting Regulation 30, whether the subsequent GO substitutlng certain regulations can be appiied retro spectively, or such substitution can be prospectively applied and the benefit of the same cannot be extended to the petitioners t2 -

18. As seen from the record, the very genesis of (i.O.Ms.No_527, dt.31.07.2008 issued as an addendum stl;stituting the Regulations 30 & 36 of G.O.Ms.No.2B7, is l;ased on the representations made by the land developerr; ,builders and representation of Commerce & Industry, the questic n of not giving the benefit of the said G.O.Ms.No.527, dt.31.07 2008, to the petitioners, rs ex facie appears to be unreasonable rr rd unjustified, as has been held by the Apex Court in Zile Sinqh u. State of Haryana and Otherst as under: "13.11 rs a carrlinal principle of construction that everr sta[ute is prima facic prospective unlcss it is cxpressl . or by nccessary implicatron made to have a rett 0 ;pectiYc operatior-t. But the rule in general is applicable r..l:ere the object of the statuLe is to affect vested rights or to impose ne's. burdens or to impair existing obligations. Unle ;s there are u,ords in the statute sufficient to show the inre ntion o[ the Legislature to aflect existing rights, it is deenr d Io be prospcctive onTy 'noua constitutto futu* fonnam. it tponere debet non praeteitis'_ a new law oughf to rcgula l.c what is to follor.r, not lhe plsl....

14. Thc prcsurnption against retrospective operatio.t ls not applicable to declaratory statutcs0 0 .l; detel nining, therefore, thc naturc of the Act, regard must be hrr . to thc substance rather tha_n to the form. If a new Ac t. is tt.r explain' an earlier Act, it q,ould be \.ithout object unless construed retrospective. An explanatory act ii 11 nerally passed to supply an obr.ious omission or to ,:Jr;ar up doubts as Lo the meaning of the previous Act. lr is u,ell settled thaL if a statute is curative or merely decla:,rtory of the previons law retrospective operation is ;;r nerally intendedll | ! An amcnding Act may be purely der:l rratoty to clear a meaning of a provision of the principal A.: u,hich u'as alre:rrl1. rmplicit. A clarificatory amendment ,r[ this nature u.ill ltave retrospective effect. r (2004)6 scc I 13

15. ...........Four factors arc suggcsted as relcvart: (i) gencral scope ald purvieur of the statute; (ii) the remedy sought to be applied; (iii) the former state of the law; and (iv) what it was the legislature contemplated. ..............The absence of a provision expresslv giving a retrospective operatlon to the legislation ls noL delerm.inative ol its prospeclivil) or rol rospecli\iry. Intrinsic evidence may be available to shol, that the amendment \ /as nccessarily intenclccl to har.e the rctrospcctive effect ald if the Court can unheiitatingly conclude in favour of r:etrospectivity, the Court would not hesitate in giving the Act that operation unless prevenred from doing so by any mandate contained in liu, or an established principle of interpretation of statutes_

24. The substitution of one text for the other prc-existing text is one of the known ar-rd ,,r,ell recognisecl practices employed in legislative dralting. 'substitutron, has to be distinguished from 'supersession' or a mere repeal of arr existing provision.

25. Substitution of a provision results in repeal oI the earlier provision and its replacement by the nerv provision........-..,.

19. The said principle finds force from the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shd.mrao V. parulekar u. Di strict Mdg tstrdte, Thana2.

20. Recently, in Sree Sankaracharya. universitg of Scnskrit q.nd. Others a. Dr. Md.nu and. Another-s also the Honble Supreme Court held as under: "31. It is tite that ang legislati.on or insttument hauing the force of lau, uhich is claiftcatory or explc:na.tory in nature an.d purpoft and tuhich seelc-s to clear doubts or con-ect ct.r. obuious omission in a statute, uould generally be retrospectiue in operation, uide State of 2 rqi2 scR 6u.l il (202:l) l9 Sut)rcmr (lourt Cases JO 14 - Bihar a. Ramesh Prasad Verntaa. Therefore, in orde, to determine uhether the Oouemment Order dated 29.03.2OOi ir'':tg be made appltcable retrospectiuelA, it is necessary to consider utheiher the said order uas a clarifLccttion or a substantiue amendma Lt.

32. ln order to effectiuely deul tuith the clspect as t) retrospectlue operation ol the Clouernment Order dated 29 3 2001 it r .ay be useful to refer to the folloulirtg extract from the treatise. Pinciples of Statutory Interpretation, I lt, Edn. (2008) bg Justice G.,) Singh on the suteep of a claitricatory / declurcttc:ry/ explonatory prout; cn: "The presumption ttgainst retrospectiue oper oppLlcable to declaratory slalules. As stated r apprctued by the Supreme Court: For modern declaraLory Act ntag be derrin.ed as an Act to 'r existing as to the common lau.t, or the meaning ot ttton is not Cra.ies and purposes a ntoue doubts effect of ang statutc,. SucLL Acts are usucLlltt held to be retrosp ctiue. [....] A" explanatory Act is generally passed t supplg an obuiotts omission or lo cleur uyt cloubts as to the t eanitg of the It is u,elL settled that if a statutt '_s curatiue or preuious Act mereltt declctratoru of th.e oreuious laut, retrospec rue r>pc!slpll is qenerct Ll [ntended. 'l'he lanquaqe 'shqLJ be Q e:zmed alwatts to hat'e meant' or " sl-tall be dc:emed neuer to hcrt. included" is declarutonl ctnd is in plain terms retrospectiue. L ,. the absence of clectr u.tords ittrlicuting thot the amending Act r.; d.er:larcrtory, It tuould rtot be so construed tul'ten the amended l.rouision rrlas clear and unumbiquous. An amending Act tn't-y be purelg clariftcatory to cLe(lr a mecuing oJ' a proutsion r J the pincipat Act rrlriclL tucts already implicit. A cLaiftcatory c mendment of thls nrLture utill houe retrospectiue effect and, tt'refore, if the principal Act tuas exist[ng lcttu when the Constltitiion came into force, thte anLending Act ctlso trilt be part r.f the existtng l.au. " ( e mp hcLs is sup p tied ). r L20t7l -r scc 6-: 15

35. The propositiort of law that a claiftcatory prouision mag be made applicable reLrospectiuely is so uelt estrtbLishecl that LUe do not toish to burden thls judgment bll rekrring to nLlings in the same uein_ Hotueuer, if l.s necessarlt to ditate on the role o-f a clanfcation/ explanation to a statute and hotu the samc may be identiJied and d[stinquished from a substantiue amencl me nt.',

21. In the light of the aforesaid judicial precedents, the addendum issued uide G.O.Ms.No.527, dt.3l.O7.2OOg, is in the nature of clarificatory/ explanatory substituting the regulations, and therc is no mcntion in the said GO as to its opera[ion onl]. from the date of issuc. It is trite law that substitution of Government Orders are retrospective in cffect, and as such, thc letLer, dt.22.11.2012, rejecting the request of the petitioners not giving the benefit of said G.O.Ms.No.52Z, dt.31.07.200g, in spite of the entitlement of the petitioners in pursuant to the said GO, is untenable, and thus, the rejection is not justified and is liable to set aside.

22. As such, in the considered vieq, of this Court, the reasons mentioned in the letter, dt.22.ll.2O12, issued bv the 1.t respondent for rejecLing the petitioners' request is erroneous and that the said letter is hereby set aside. The respondents herebv directed to consider the case of the petitioners ln pursuance of the G.O.Ms.No.527, dt.31.07.2OOB, rvithin a period of (OB) u,eeks from the date of rece ipt of a copy of tl- is ot.der. It is made clear that the 1retitroners shall abide by the : rnditions that may be imposed b1, the respondents and also pa,y he amount of

1.5 times of the prcsent market value in lieu of t re land to be given for HADA area (now HMDA) and petitior.r rs shall also develop on its ou,rr an extent of 3,65T sq. yards ol-ILnd meant for EWS purpose in terms of G.O.Ms.No.S27, d,t.3t.OZ.2OOB, by follon,ing the cor-rditions stared in Regulation 3O of the said GO. Needless to say that, the petitioners shall file all ILe documents before the respondcnts, rvhich are necessary for l assing of the appropriate orders.

23. Accorclingl,r., the Writ Petition is a-llorved. .t I order as to As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, 12n-1,, pending shall stancl closed That Rute Nisi has been made absolute as above. Witness THE HON'BLE THE CHTEF JUSTTCE APARESH Kt. MAR StNGH, on this FRIDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST OAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSI.IID AND TWENW FIVE //TRUE COPY// St s tr-P. PONNA KRISHNA SISTANT REGISTRAR I \ l-- ' SECTION OFFICER One Fair Copy to the Hon'ble Sri J ustice SUDDALA C IIALAPATH| RAO (For His Lordships Kind perusal) To Affairs, New Delhi.

1. 11 LR Copies. 2. The Under Secretary, Union of lndia l\,4inistry of Law, J I ;tice and Company 3 The Secretary, Tetangana Advocates Association Libr;rr,7, High Court 4. The Commissioner/ Vice- Chairman, Hyderabad tvletro p :rlita n, Development Buildings, Hyderabad. Authority (HIMDA). HUDA Comptex. Tainaka, Hyderab I l. .- I The Principal Secretary, Governmenl of Telangana, MA and UDA Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. The Vice- Chairman/Commissioner, Hyderabad Airport Development Authority, (now, functional Agency of HIVDA) HUDA Complex, Tarnaka, Hyderabad. One CC to SRI RAJAGOPALLAVAN TAYI, Advocate [OPUC] Cne CC to SRI V.NARASIIVHA GOUD, SC FOR HMDA [OPUC] Two CCs to GP FOR IVUNCIPAL ADI\IN AND URBAN DEV, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad. [OUT] Two CD Copies E o 7 B o 10 PSK. BS HIGH COURT DATED:31 11012025 ORDER WP.No.3934 of 2013 :::l/ f^ \J,t J() (_) 1 !ir, 2t25 i;i { .", )., -r/r- t ,9, ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS I8q . L