The High Court · 2025

Petition und',r- section 151 Cpc prayrng that in the crrcumstances stated in the affidavit frrecr rn support of the petition, the High coLrrt miry be preased to release the con:',trt : tion permrssion to the petitioners subjec t to the furfiflment of the demand amour las contained in the letters of the responrJernt; dt 25-,1 j_200g and 17127-1'2009 r::,nding disposar of the writ petition and sLrbjer t to the resurt of the writ petition Counsel for the petitionqrs: SRt. VEDULA VENKATARAMANI SENIOR C9UNSEL REp sRt PRABHAI.iAR pERl Counsel forthe Respondents: S[l K. RAVINDER REDDY (SC FOR GHMC) The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.2O68 of2oO9 ORDER Heard Sri Vedula Venkataramana, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri t)cri Prabhakar, learned Counsel for the pelitioners ancl the learncd Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondents and pcruscd the record'

2. The petitioners by the Prcscut Writ Pcrtition has assailed the action ol 1"t rcspondt-'n1 aulhority in issr'iing le[ter dated 25.1 1.2008 whereby the 1"' respondent harl sought to lely a sum of Rs.25,54,430/- as "LayouI Regularization Scheme Charges" for considering thc application made by the petitioners for construction of two addit ional blocks of rcsidential flats of five floors each in Sy. Nos 93, 94 and 95 situated at Mallapur village, Kapra, Ranga Ilcdcly Districl, as cxtension to the existing group housing schcn.ic, as arbitrary and illegal with a consequential direction to tl-re respondents to refund the aforementioned amount paicl by the petitioncrs along with 18% inlerest per annlrm.

3. It is the case of thc petitioners that purcha$dland admeasuring Ac'4 00 gts' in Sy initially it had Nos.93, 94 and 2 95 ol rv'lal irpur village, Kapra, IRar-rga Reddy Dis,t.ic ancl had consl-ru{tte I live apartment blocks under group hoiLsi rg sr:heme by obt,a ni 1 ncr:essary consLruc tion / building pennr,sion from the 1sr r,rs1 - ndent without anv <levialion.

4. It is tlrc, lurther case of the petiLioncrs thal s-r )s(.qucntly it had ac.qrrir:rl rhe acljoining land admeasuring Ac.1 . 3 3ts. in the same sL rr.:' numtters with an objective to cxlr.rcl the same group fLcus::'rg schcme by constructing t$,o otrrcr ;rmitar blocks of resiclen ial apartmenl :rncl thus, approach:d the 1"r responcLe,r'rt aLrd submitted application d:rted 2{).04.200g seeki'rg 1're,trission for construction of propos.d trr.,. r:sirlential apartmcr':t rlor:l<s as an extension to the existine. Ii re l;locks alread,. c ,n rn,, r,.d by it. 5 PeLitior : r's further contend that the 1sr r.cs1.r.rrd rn1 .,.r,hirc consideiirg r,hc aloresard application made br it secking permissicrr rtr ,:onstruction of acldittonal block consLrtl tg ol t\ ro apartmiln[ ] lo,:,<s trl. its letter clate<l 25.01.2O0g l.rarl :a lccl upon the petrti,;1, rs Lo pay a sum ol l?s.55,00,205/'_ rrn,le..various heads Ibr p rrr ting permissiorr lbr constructi,r-r .r a rditional blocks. I l , I I i ,ti /' ,, //./ 3

6. Petitioners further contcnd that in the aforesaid letter issued by the l"t respondent dcmanding the aforesaid payment to be made by it lor consiclcring the application submitted seeking permission, the 1"r rcspondent had demanded a sum of Rs.25,54,43O/ - under thc heacl "l,ayout Regularization Scheme Charges"

7. It is contended by the pctitioners that on being issued with the above mentioned 1e tter dcnianding paymcnt wlnich inter alia included component of "l,ayout RegularizaLion Scheme Charges", it had made a protcsl' against Lhc aforesaid levy by submitting a representation daled 30.12.2008 stating that "Layout Regularization Scheme Cl-rargcs" would become payable only for such piot of lancl u'hich werc not having sanctioned layout as dehned in G.O.Ms. No.9O2 Municipal Administration of Urban Developmcnt Dcp:,lrl ment, dated ll l 12'2OO7 , and since the adjoining land accluired by thc petiLioners for construction of additional tr,vo blocks cannot be considered as unau[horized layout, the dernand made under the head "Layout Regularization Schemc Chargcs" in the impugncd proceeding is not valid. Despite the said representation and protest recorded by the petitioners, the 1st respondent had reiterated of its demand uide letter d,aLcd 17 l2-/ .O 1 2009 and called upon the 4 petitiln erl tc mal(e the paymcnt of the same rvrtlti -L l,ever.r days, lailing ,rrh ir:h thc file relating to thc applicatior r rnr Lclc by the petition .r's br- szrnction of permission u.ould be clos od

8. Fttitir rrers t.,ould lurther conlend that beit.t I aced rvith such a srt I rtron and also the irnmediate reqtrirctn r-l to obtain sanctior i . i1r lor underl2fui1g construction, it ]r: cl macle the paymen' o'l_hc amount demanded by the lst resp<;ncent under the impr rgr I d procceding for obtaining permission. (), Pclitio rcrs c:ontend that since the demancl r.n.l,lc b] the 1st responclc nt undcr the heading ,.Layout Rgularul t ir Schemc Chargcs' ir conlrary to G.O.Ms, No.9O2 dated 31 1,.,,.2OO7 as amendeci b G.O.Ms. No. 113 dated 31.01.2008, rlrr petitioners have lll:,1 lrtr: prescnt Writ pctilior-r questioning t,t : I alicLtr. of the sairl l::-,,. .

10. Petit c,r -rs lurther contend that Lhe levy o1. tltr: arount of Rs.25,5.1 .4ll ).i - ur-rdcr the hcading ,.Layour lle11u arization Schentc r -'.;-1 , .sr:s,, is inapplicable to the builditrg. applir::rtion m:rde br r rtcl lhc type of construction which is ,ji uf ltt 1cl be made as lrr lar-ld admeasuring Ac.1.ig gts. in Sr_ \cs.93. 94 and 95 ,;f Nir ira rr rr vi agc acquired by it has never )o._.r ctivided inLo plots .o rhc plots were sorcl to third parties i. the rorm of $ I t , r $ I T E 5 layout and as such the lst respondent couid not have levied and demanded the aforesaid amount for considering the application made by the petitioners for sanction of building permission which is only an extension to the existing group housing scheme.

11. It is also contended by the petitioners that after undertaking the construction of residential apartment in the said land, the petitioners would only be selling the built up area covered by residential apartment and there would not be any question of plot of land and selling oi the plotted land and as such seliing of plotted land would not arise'

12. Petitioners further contend that the layout regularization scheme applies only when agriculture land has been divided into plots and sold and since the petitioners construction is neither based on plots or in the form of p1ots, [he layout regularization scheme itself does not apply to the application submitted by the petitioners for sanction of building permission'

13. It is also contended on behalf of the petitioners that in terms of Section 388 of the GHMC Act, 1955, the demand under the aforesaid heading viz., Layout Regularization Scheme can only be made if the person intended to sell or 1et on lease any 6 t, :i'' land trr il , id ing the same into building plo:s li r u tdertaking const:-ur:ti lt of building therein. Thus, the impr sr ed levv is s,ho lh' r ; u hout authority and sanction of las., I4. CoLLnl-:r :rffidavit on behalf of the respondenrs; s rrot filcd. 15. I-lor,,c,r tr, learned Standing Counsel appearrnq or behalf of the rers,p,611 ..l6trts on the other hand i.r,ould sul_,nrit that the pctitione-s racl obtained sanction for construction of fve blocks 'A' to 'E' crc t- s jsting of stilt + 5 upper floors earlitrr b ,, makir_rg applicatl(,rr o l{vderabad Urban Development r\utlLo r.it y, (HUDA) <lated !ll, . O.:i 2OO5 which application was appro\ ed b1. the concern,3(l I lr.rnicipality as existing then uide proceerlir gs dated 29.O9.'2O(t) r::rmitting construction of 16,1g5.g3 s(lrrare meters in land :.clnr.:rsuring Ac.4.OO gts. 16 ()n b'-':h : f of the respondents, it is further corrt:n led that the pres:.rr- ,:plrlication made by the petitioncrs lbr 3rant of building per lission is rn respect of additional extert ot land admeasrrring ,\c,1.1g gts. acquired by it adjoining tlLe existing site r,r.hir:h i:x : nr. is not covered by the earlier ap1>rov rl . 77 on beha f or the respondents, it is arso contendel that the petitioner-s bv :icquiring the adjoining land admeersu.r. g \c. I . i g gts. are int:n Ing to construct two additional floors r,iz. Block I I I I I i I I I I i t l I I i 7 'F' ancl 'G' therein and as such the said construction cannot be considered as forming part of earlier approval lor the petitioners to claim that there is no furlhcr developmc:nt that is being undertaken by it for which it is not required to pay the amounts as dcmanded under lhc impugn.d proceeding'

18. On behalf of the responclcnts, it is also contended that sincc the petitioners are ul'rdertaking construction ol flats in the additional site acquired by it., though by ctaiming the same as an exLension, since the land rvircrcin lhe petitioners intend to take up construction is not includcd in earlier approval which is only in respect of land admeasuring Ac'4'OO gts, it is required to pay the charges including thc charges as set out in the impugne d letter.

19. On behalf of the respondents, it is also contended that the petitioners having paid the amounts in terms ol the lctter dated 17 l27.Ol.2OO9 without any clt:mur or prot(rsl (rannol question the lery by claiming thc same to be il1egal aftcr having obtained pcrmission.

20. On behalf of the respond,i:nts, it is also con[ended that Section 388 of the GHMC Act is rrot only in relation to dividing the lan{ into building plots, but also covcrs any land or a '3 { 8 llortron t. r ire trscd for buricling purposes an:r since, the petrtior-lr:r: zrrc sccking to col_lstntct residenri:LL apartment blocks t: ltc larrcl acquired b-_r, it, subsequently tlrc petilioners for obtaining pL r-r,r rission lor underta <ir !i (.onsLruction thercin notwithstanding th r fact that the said la rcl is not diviclecl into plots, but is consrie .ed zts one block rf lzLr rl , are r_-q -rrr rr:1 lo rxake paymenL '27. I have _tken note of thc resltcctive contenr.ions lriJecl 22 Writ Pe rt i Th r-' sl ort point thal arisr:s for corrsideratjon tn tl c irrcsent I rs as to u,hc[hcr l.he demancl ,tf ,,Layout Regulariz at r rir Scitcme Charges,, rnade by the 1sr rr:sltcndent on the pelil:on .r rs 1or grant oI buiiding permissron rs a pplicable only in rclztt ion to the plots vr.hcrcin construction ts, rrt,posed to be unrl_-r; ak trrr arcl uot in respect of land which is ro divided into plots :r; rrl solcl. but is r,rscd for construction o1 al)artment block.

23. For d:c:lirq the aforesaid issue, it is necessarv to refer to G.O.Ms. .\i . t( ):2 dated A1 .l2.2OOg wher<:in lr( u.ord unappror c 17' I crlal Iayout has bccn defined u,hictt rr:acls as under: 9 ""Unapproved/ illegat layout" means sub division of land into plots with or without devcbped roads, open spaces and amenities and without the approval of the competent a uthority."

24. Though on behalf of the petitioners it is vehemently contcnded thal inasmuch as thc petitioners are not dividing the Iand acquired by it into plots for undertaking conslruction and is sclling only the built up area after completion of the conslruction, it is to be noled that the petitioners while selling the built up area in thc residential apartment constructed by it would also sell the undrvided share in the land, thereby resulting in transfer of interest in the land in favour of the intending purchaser. Thus, effcctively the land purchased by Lhe pe titioners on which consl.ruction of residcntial apartment is made and sold to the purchascr, Lhe interest of Lhe pe[itioners in the land acquired by it would get transferred though not by metcs and bounds, with specific boundaries. Such division of interest in the land whcn solcl :rlong with built-up area would have to be treated as ll,ithout developed road, open spaces, ameni[ies and without approval of the competent authoriQr. 'l'hus, the act of petilioncrs acquiring the additional land adjacent to its existing construcLion and proposrng to undcrtake construction of two additional blocks therein r.l'ou1d be covered 10 by thc d, frnrtion of trnapproved layout, as delir t:d under the aforcsaid t .o ) 25 Fr r-ll cr. Srrr:Lion 3gg of Lhc Cll tMC Act also i ov:rs varlous t.vpcs o 11 .r;' 1)f l:|td and is not cotrfrned only.to cltv rir tg the land rnto p^c ts

26. A rcr , s:rl o[ Clausc (c) ol Scction 3gg of ii ,-: Act woulcl shou' th a t r- sc of a ny land or a portion thcreol br, 1: cl nitting the samc 1o br r.rscd lor builcling purposc, a notice rs r rqr rirecl to be given rr, tl-c Contmissioncr oi. irrLcntion to la.r.r lrt land for builcling rr .,1 5jn1.", thc petitionr:rs in lhe land acqr irecl by it admcasr Lr-i. I i1 ,,\c, 1. l g gts. is inLcrrcling lo constrrrr ( I esidential apartmei,'- L.rcl scll the samc *.i1h undivided share cl liLnd to the intenrlit-r,g 1, r, r.r.i-nsc:rs, such usc of Iancl for builcline 1tr rposes in thc corrs d, ..,..r r tc\\. ol lhis C,,rrrr u.orrlfl squ3lqlv r. c ,r,a."6 6, the scol;r o llcrction 3gg of tl-rc Acr.

27. Si;tc,,. rlt I pctitioners b,r undertaking coil-st.rction of rcsidcntr L r lrat-trnc:r-rt would not onl-y be sclling tl-1c :orrstmcted area Lrr r sit tl-ic unrlividcrl share in t hc I __ n l. such constru( t (-tr tlt lltc land acqurred by it which is rrol already divided in-o ;lo.s having necess:rn, approval from the cr nccrnecl authorit\., sr rr:h construcLion would have to be con sir lerecl as I i i 1 1,t being made in an approved layout of a plot of Ac'1'18 gts' requiring the petitioners to pay the necessary charges for regularizing such plot of land' Further, it would also not out of place to note that there is no prescription in G'O'Ms' No 902 as the extent of land which amended bY G.O.Ms. No. 113 as to would be considered as Plot.

28. On the olher hand the Table 1 of the G O would show that any land irrespective of its size would be considered as plot' Thus, the entire extent of Ac'1'18 gts' acquired by the petitioners in respect of which the petitioners had submitted application for constructing two apartment blocks including provision of amenities and roads would have to be treated as plot by itself, requiring to pay necessary charges in respect of the said plot.

29. Thus, thc claim of the petitioners that only when land is divided into plots and sold in respect of which the purchaser making an application for grant of building permission for undertakingConstructionthereinisrequiredtopaycharges towards regularization scheme being unauthorized/illegal layout is misconceived a .:: :.' 1,2

30. ,n r,lr 1,. of the above, this Court sees no illege lity in the 1sr respo,<ier ; issuing the impugned letter demand,rg ,rn amount of Rs.t.t5, ,;q,q3O /_ towards Layout Regulariz,tlior r Scheme Chargcs,. 3 1 . Acc,,r--c ingly, the Writ dismissed. l{o costs. Petition is devoid of rter it and is Asa equel, miscellaneous petitions pendinq if rny shall stand clo:;er //TRUE COPY// qD/.T. TTRUMALA DEV| QEF,U-I'Y REGISTRAR Sl=CIION OFFTCER ,/ i1 ,i H'#'t#F [E Sb f ?IS.F8 *"],Yfil ) [')PUCj To,

1. One 2. One 3. Two CC CC CD b SFr I to SR Cooie,; B IVI BS w VACAT'ION COURT HIGH COURT' DATED:2810512025 t1- , ..; :'a l, r4,--\1 ^ ,c \ 0 4 JiN 206 /t' ;' ,,/ ORDER WP.No.2068 of 2009 /,1 t'. l) L \'- '\,. DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS 6 .odd \.v- <\a-,