Mesineni Kamlakar Rao v. 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh

4. l.earned Stantiing Counsel lor rcspondent Nos.2 and 3 would further submit that in vicu, o[ tlrc aforesaid order passed by the Division Be,ch of this Court , tl.re petiLioner has to submit ITIALA certificate and thercforr:. t.e *,rit petition is liabre to be disposed of in terms of order passed b1. the Division Bench of this Court in - K. Sc,tgc:nando. po;tnaik (cited supra).

5. Learned Counsel for petitioner did not dispute the submissions of leamed Standing Counsel that the order passed by the Division Bench, squarely applies to the present writ petition.

6. Accoggtingly, ttre u,rit petitior_r is disposed of in terms of directions issued by thc Division Bench of this Court in 3 K.Satgananda Patnaik (cited *pra[ There shall be no order as t to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/.A. JAYASREE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR 6SECTION OFFICER

1. Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department, Secretariate Buildings, Hyderabad.

2. The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Karimnagar, Karimnagar, Karimnagar District.

3. The Regional Deputy Director of Town & Country Planning,, K-U.D.A, Complex, Hanamkonda, Warangal District. 4- Two CCs to GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT] 5. One CC to SRI CH.KOTESWARA RAO, Advocate [OPUC] 6. One CC to SRI K.SIDDHARTH REDDY, Advocate (OPUC) 7. Two CD Copies (Along with a copy of the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in K.Satyananda Patnaik (city supra) i.e., W.A.No.702 ot 2010 and batch and WP.No.8666 of 2008 and batch) a \ To SA B t HIGI.I COURT DATEQ:31 11012025 ----:.-'' .'a;" " ,irR IhE S f4a \. jI * 6 DlTC L\+' t| o l: (-.l * I ORDER WP.No.14894 of 2014 DISPOSING OF THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS. o,\r^ \oJ> HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTrcE DILIP B. BHOSALE AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE S.V.BHATT W -A.Nos.7tZf2O1O, 7 4l rm10. 7 4Zm1O. 7 43m10. 7 47 P,10, 7 54n01O. 757@10. 7W&1O. 10fim10. 1lJ{7m10. 1063m10. 7 m1t. 32?1?011. 143DO11. 1*7ffi12. 533EO1S. 29612012. W.P.Nos.866dA)o8. 152782008. 1&{972008. 170922q)8. 18512/2008. 1A727P]d]A. 1ATr6tzJ],,, 2M7tN. 26t23l20/)€- WP Z791A[2iJ,)8.- 84UM. g71uMt- t260t2000. 3a93rrm. 6427/2000. el4212(xr9. 655{2q)9. 7659/2(m. 8:}392m0. 9:16&2D9. g4(Xn(xx). E)08/2009. 18151/2,09. 1846,1/2009. E34/2O10.25461/2010.5469/2010- fi*9m10. 32531 ftnt0. 2g13m11. 33m,tm1 1. 6f43m1 1. gruvm11. @*m11 - 7 472Jn11. 7476t2011. 8103t2A11. 94?g.m11. 9915m11. m:],llzJ11. 21385m11. 297nO11. 22933fin11. 24651nO11. 2479a2011. 25o4zm11, 25795m11- 2n61fr11. 27!mm11. 2l,6:Jafm11. *?35tm11. 32427 t811. g7MlN11. 273t2012. Z74tfr1z 597m12 lffim12. 2151m12. fi75tm12. 5076tm12- 5tu2tm1L 5631m12. 113451N12. 1745;112i)12. 18f69m12- 21070m12. 341m'm12. 35€41rfr12, 3MItn12- ffim12- #9djfm12- 939m12. 36J's2tm12. 37s79.t?o12. 37ffi1812. 39dMm12. 1377m13. z)5Xm13- 3293i2013.352r/2fi3. 1()95/2013.6065/2013.52711/2013.6dt72013.6850X2013. 8871,12013. 89i$n013. 9!36/2013.9428/2013.99572013. 10297/2013.'lodl7/2o13. 107!/l/2013. t0705/2013. 104n4/2013. 11855/2013. 133:1712013. i3A6&2013. 134892013. 14/47/2013. 15464nO13. 159a2t'2013. 172Um13. 17416t2o13. 176Nm13- 177&tm13- 1418am13. fra4812013. 206,95m13, 21439tm13. 218€1m13. 2254f2013. f7m13. D@m13- 23473mn3. 2vt4o'mlx ?aJ93t2013. 3153312013. 105m14. 14€,m14. 965m14. 1@12514. 1725tzJ14. 12,sm14. 13gtstm1 4. m74m14. 3c3/Jm1 4. 4231m14. 51211fr1 4. ffi!fr1 4. 6117,2014.75/0/2014.7903/m14.8a49/2o14.9170/2)14. 9B&l/201i1. 9/153/2014. 94tU2014. 97nmt4. *frlmt4. 106f'9tm14. '11157tN14. 11reAtzJ14. 12328fm14. 1u&Jm14. 12664/2014. 12An 2014. 13:156/20r{. 13791/2014. 1q)6rl2014. 15264rm14. 1546(y2}14. 15473t2014. 15479t2014. 1fi90m14. 1574qm14. 16lj7312o11. 17W2fX)14- 1721212014- 1 75r 5/20't4- 175AA20r4. 1 8592014. 1 8a5A/20 t4- 190612014.',19163rm14. 19',1fl 120 14- 1E2f,1m14. 194?,J?o14. 216[o,tm14. 21&JOm14. 22494tfr14. 59m14. ANm14. 2419U2014. 24327t2014. 2492o.m14. 25113fX)14- 2$74m14. 2s906,m14. 2tr422m14. 2A2|2014. 2tu2in|fi. ?631i,m14- ?a7641m14. 2f,a51m14. A2rn11. X)2dJm14. 310{arm14. 32429t2014, 33515tN14. 346,57tfr14. 3,69/Um14. 3{735nO14. 3473gtm14. 3rt868,2014. 351912014. 355212014- 35555/2014. 4xl7o/2014. 41 159/2014. 42012015- a712015. E76ml5. 19762015. 1t3€2lm1s. 21131zJ15. Zxrm1s. 3/F,sm15. 3I19m15. il5IB/2015. 51642015- 52342015. 597,1/:p15. 6dl6/2015. 6620.20.15. 3766,2015.3A5//20r5. 6690/mr5.6959/2015.7239/m15.739220.t5.7'()3/m15.7865/2015.81t23/2015.85952015. 87{6/20'15.8766/2015.88752015- 8898/2015. 9089/2015- 9456/12015..9,192t2)'15. !t639/2O15. 972,zJ15. 10710m15. 111gJ'm15. 111g31zJ15. 11219m15. 11152m15. 12451m15. 127e12015. 1281i112015, 12941/2fi5. r3:i&?2o15. 1378a/2015- 1345!v2O'15- r/1690/2015- 15610/2015. 15616f2015. 16091ru15. 1@79/2015. 1862i12015 and r E5-/r /2{r15- COMMON ORDERT (Per Hon't'h sn Justice s.v-Bhatt) Through this common order, we propose to dispose of writ appealsy'rrrit petitions involving common questons of law. The batch of wdt appeals, is directed against the common order dated 28.04.20'10 in w.P.No.26688 ol 2007 and the batch. By the order dated 28.04.2010, the leamed Single Judge disposed of the batch oflhe writ petitions by holding as follows: " a) lt sha[ be competent lor the Urban Developrnent Authorities, or the Local Authorit€s, as lhe case may be, to insist on submissbn of cleararEe/permission under lhe 2006 Act as a condition paeceded for releasirE of layouts ; aM b) lhe land has been put to non agricuhural use before the 2006 Acl came inlo force, such clearance/permission shallnot be insisted." The 2006 Act retened to is the Andhra Pradesh Agriculturat (Conversion for Non- Agricultural Purposes) Act, 2006, which shall be hereinafter called and referred to for short ?ct 3 0f 2006". The prayers in the batch of writ petitions seek declaration thal the petition lands which are part of a zonal development plan under the Andhra pradesh Urban Areas (Development) Act, 1975 (for short'Act 1 of 1975J are outside the purview ol Act 3 ol 2006 or that the letter issued by the Urban Development Autho.ity calltng upon he petitioners to obtain.No Obieclion Certilicate'/ Clearance under Act 3 ol 2006 for considering tayout apptication, as illegal, without jurisdiction and uncoostitulional_ ln the instant batch, the fo lowrng questions arise for consideration L/nder the Acl 3of 2006 and theAct 1 of 1975. i. What is the scope aM ambit 01 Act 3 of 2006 and Acr i ot 1975, rr parricular, lhe scope, purpose and e,fect ol paymenl ol conversion Ta( and Developrnent Charges under these Acts, Whether the Urban Development Authorily for consideration and sanction of layout plans submitted by a developer ol a proprty covered by Development ptan, can insist upon submission o{ No ObJection Certilicaldolearance from the Revenue Divisional Oftlcer under Act 3 ot 2006 {or processing an apphcalion filed ior tayout approval? Il Whether it is necessary to get land converted inlo Non,Agrcuttura{ use once it is covered by Developmenl Plan and aller th€ sanclion of layout by the Ulban Development Authority? Heard Mr. l,ll. V. Durga Prasad, Mr. P Prabhakar Rao, Mr.Ajay Reddy, leamed counsel, Mr. V. Venkataramana and Mr. B. Adinarayana Rao, learned senior counset lor appellants/ petitioners and the leamed Advocates General lor the States of Tetanaana and Andhra pradesh. For convenience, we reler to the averments in Writ Appeal No.7O2 ot 201O ansing out of W.P.No.26688 ot 2007 and the reference to these altegations is sutficient for understanding the circumstances under which the questions of law arises tor decisron. The learned counsel appearing for all the partjes advanced arguments on the questions framed above. The case of appellants in Writ Appeat No. 702 o120 I O is lhat the appellants are the absolute owneE and possessors of lhe land in Survey No.24zpad, 244tpan and 245lPan otBahadurpatti Vilage, Khurhbutiahpur Mandat, Ranga Beddy District. The appellants claim right and tide to the said property through registered sale deeds dated 1 1 .03.2005, 28.05.2005, 03.062005, 04.06.ZOOS and 27.1Z.ZOOS. The appelanrs under Section 12 ofAct 1 ol 1975, applied to the Hyderabad urban Development Authority/ist respondent forconveEion of Iand use under the zonal development plan_ The competent authority through Memo bearing No. 26g92A MA dated 04.05.2006 issued draft notjlication calling for obiections against proposed change of use. The .equest of appellants for change of land use was accepted through G.O.MS.No.Z87, Municipal Administration and Udcan Development (1) Departrnent dated 30_05.2006_ The appellants applied under Sections 13 and t4 of Act 1 of t97S for sanclion of layout for the petition land. The 1st respondent ca ed upon lhe appeltants to pay development charges ot Rs.44,10,582-. The levy of development charges is under Sections 27 and 29 of Act l of 1975. On 15-11.2007, the appe aots paid a sum ol Rs.44,10,582/- tcwards development charges as demanded by the Urban Development Auhority. The lst respondent4.rdcan Development Authority through Lefler No.1 1766/Mp2lplanning/ H/2006 dated 11.11.2007 ca ed upon rhe appelants to produce .No Objection Certificate' (NOC) from the District Coltector evidencing conversion ofsubiect land into non-agricultural pulpose to process the pending application for approval of layout. The appellants challenge the instant tetter on various factual and legal grounds. Briefly stated. the case of l st respondent, as reflected in the counter affidavit, is that as an authonty under Act I of 1975, the 1st respondent is concemed with the development of an area covered by master plan/zonal development plan as per the purpose specified iherein The lsl respondent admits receipt of Rs.44,10,582/- towards developrnent charges. As far as the averments in letter dated 11-11.2007, tle 1st respondent replies hat the condition to obtain NOC from the authority under Act 3 ot 2006 is insisted upon as per the directives issued by the Govemment of Andhra Pradesh. The lsirespondent alleges that Acl 1 of i975 cannol be understood as oveniding Act 3 of 2006. h is stated lhat an owner intending to develop he land into any of the purposes stated under the notified master plan is required lo follow the prescriptions of Act 3 of 2006 and Acl 1 of 1975 tn other words, it is he case of lst respondent that the arnount paad under Act 1 ot 1975 is towards development charges and under Act 3 of 2006 one tirne tax is payable and the tax is imposed by R.D.O lor conversion of agricullural land for non-agricultural porposes. Therefore, according to respondent Acts 1 of 1975 and 3 of 2006 opcrate in different spheres and he notilications or conversion of land for development purpose c€nnot be equated as .lst conversion ol agriculhrral land for non-agricultural purpose under Act 3 of2006. The 1st respondent prays for dismissal of writ petition. The 2d respondent in their counter affidavit states that the povisions of Acl g of 2006 are applicable and binding on a person intending to converl agricultural land tor non-agricultural purpose in spite of any order/notification under Act 1 ol 1975- lt is he case of 2tu respondent lhat the payment of developmenl lee under Act 1 ol 1975 is to an authority constituted under Act 1 of 1975 and this levy is rn the nature ol fee collected towards development charges by the specified authority. The development charges are payable in terms of applicable regulations made under Act 1 ol 1975 and the payment does not exonerale lhe appellants from the legal obligation of conversion tax under Act 3 of 2006. The 2d respondent further states that under lhe Andhra Pradesh Non agriculturai Land Assessment Act, 1963 (for short 'Act 14 of 1963'), the Governmenl was authorized to levy non-agricultural land tax upon conversion ot agicultural land inlo non-agricultural land Under Act 14 of'1963, the authonlies were authodzed to collect non agncultural land tax kom a person who puts agricultural land tor non-agricultural use or purpose. The power or authority under Acl 14 ol 1963 to impose Non-Agricultural Land Assessment (NALA) Tax on land actually used for non-agricultural pupose and the land to be used for non' agricultural purpose was challenged in a batch ot writ petitions and the princrple was {inally decided by he Supreme Court in Federa(ion of A.P. Chambers of Comnrerce and lndustry and olhers vs. State ot A-P.E For the purpose of examrning and interpreting Act 3 of 2006, in our view the law declared by the Supreme Cou( in Federation of A.P. Chambers' case is Lrseflrl and relevant portion ot ludgment reads thus: "7. lt is trite law thal a laxing statute has lo be strictly conslrued and nothing can be read into ft. ln the classic passage from Cape Brandy Syndicale, which was notrced in lheJudgment under appeal. it was said: "ln a taxng Act one has to look merely at what is clearly said- There as no room lor any intendment. There is no equity about a tax. There is no presumption as lo a tax. Nothrng is to b€ read in, nothing is lo be implied. One can look fairly at ttle language used " This view has been reiterated by this Court trme ard again. Thus, rn The State of Bombay v. Automobile and Agricullural Industries Corporation, Bombay 1961 12 S.T.C. 122, this Court said: But the couds in interpreting a taxing statule wlll not be juslified in adding words thereto so as to make out some presumed object of lhe Legislature... lfthe Legislature has failed to clarity ils meaning by the use of appropriate language, the benefit thereof must go to the laxpayer lt is settled law that in case of doubt, that interprelation ol a taxing statute which is beneficial to the taxpayer must be adopted-

8. On behatf ol the respondent'State, learned Coonsel drew our attention to the judgment of this Court in The Conlroller ol Eslale Duly. Gularat v Shri Kantilal Trikamlal . That judgment also is to the same effect and does nol avajlthe respondents. ll sard: The sweep of lhe Sections which will be presently set out must, the(efore be informed by the language actually used by the legislature. Of course, if 01e words cannot appJy to any recordite species of property, courts cannot supply new logos or invent unnatural sense to words to fuml the unexp.essed ard unstated wishes of the legislature.

9. We are in no doubt whatever. therefore, that it is only land which is actually in use for an industrial pupose as defined in the said Act that can be assessed to non-agricultural assessment at lhe rate specitied tor land used tor industrial pueoses. The wider meaning given to the word'used' in fle judgment under challenge is untenable. Having r€ard lo the facl that the ;aid Act is a taxing statute, no court is justilied in imputing to the legislafure an ir(ention rhat it has not cleariy expressed in the larEuage it has employed." The State Legislature taking note ol the law declared by trle Apex Court in Federation oa A.P. Chambers'case and with a view to putting rn place comprehensive legislation, .epealed Act 14 of 1963 and enacted Act 3 of 2006. Therelore, in this background, it is the case of 2d respondent fiat the paymenl under Act 3 of 2006 is one tirne payment of tax forconversion ofagricultural land lor non-agdcultural purpose, instead of levy and demand of NALA Tax for every Fasili under Act 14 ol 1963. The amounl levied and collected under Act 3 of 2006 is by its very nature a tax levied by the State for conversaon ol agricultural land for non-agricultural purpose and no parallel can be drawn wih the development charges paid to development authority under Act 1 ol 1975 lor inslitution ol use or conversion of use. According to respondent, Act 1 of 1975 and Act 3 of 2006 administer dilferent situations and applications. lt is furfier stated thatthe State Government after taking note of lack ol coordinaton between the different authorities who grant permissions under Act 1 of 1975 issued note Nos.84(154r'&E-D-3/2007), (371Ar'&E-D3/20Oi) and (7351r'&ED3/2007) dated

28.05.2007 to insist upon production of NOC/Clearance from R.D.O under Act 3 ot 2006- While considering sancton of layout approvals, the inslant oote calls upon the Vice- Chairmen of lJrban Development Aufno.ities to insist upon production of NOC lrom authority (RDO) underAct 3 of2006. The respondents pray lor dismissal of he wrir petitions. The leamed counsel lor appellants/petitioners contend that Act 1 of 1975 and Act 3 of 20OG cover he same subject matter and these Acts are overlappiog. Theretore, in application of these enactments, he well established principles of inteDretation as laid dOWN iN ALLAHABAD BANK V. CANARA AANK[AI, SURESH NANOA V. CBP, ASHOK ARKETING LIMIIED v. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANKH and KSL & INDUSTRIES LIMITED V. ARTHANT THREADS LIMITEDE are to be applied and conpliance with the requirements under Act t of 1975, satisfies the requirement ot due @nve6ion of agricultural land for any of the non-agricullural purposes. The insistence upon clearance/Noc from R-D.O is ultra vires and in support of f|is proposition, the appellants place reliance on SUBASH KUMAR LOHADE VS THE SPECIAL OFFICER, MUNICIPAL coRPoRATIoN oF HYDERABAoIq. I is contended hat the import of both the Acts is one and the same_ The words .conversion and 'change of land use' used in these enactments are used in the same sense. The learned counsel turther contend that the ,lon obstante clause in the special eflactmenl viz., Act 1 of 1975 has oveniding effect on the provisions of Act 3 of 2006 and that lhe operation ol Act 1 of 1975 excludes firsfly the operation of provisions of Act 3 ol 2006 in a notified udcan area and secondly lhe conversion tax under Act 3 of 2006 amounls to double taxaton. The learned counsel funher contend that even assuming withoul admitting that land conversion tax is payable, lhe scheme of Act 3 of 2006 provides for ex post /acto payment of conversion tax for use of land for non-agricullural purposes. Therefore, the Urban Developmenl Auhorities cannot call upon applicants to oblain NOC ftom the Revenue Department. The condition precedent imposed by he Urban Development Authority for consideration of layout approval apptication is arbitrary and wilhout iurisdiction. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants place strong reliance upon Section 2(e), (0 (o) and (p), Sections 3, 6, 7, 13, 27, 28 and 29 ot Acl I of 1 975 to contend that the area covered by Act 1 ot 1975 rs comprehensively governed by Act 1 ol 1975 and none else. The appellants rely upon the regulations issued by he Development Authority from time to time under Act 1 of 1975 to iliustrate their contenlion that the tee paid under Act I ol 1975 is in fact a conversion fee. By virhle of issuance ol a notificalion under Section 7 ol Act 3 of 2006, the lands used lor such notilied purposes are exempled from Act 3 ol 2006 and there is no need to pay land conversion tax to Government. The appe ants in supporl ol their contention under Section 7 o( Act 3 of 2006 rely upon the notification issued by the 1st respondent for institution ot use or any development use under Act I ol 1975. ln other words, the submission ot leamed clunsel for he appellants is that once a notillcation under Act 1 of 1975 is issued permifling change of land use, application ol Act 3 of 2006 is excluded to such notified land. It is linally contended that he NOC cannot be insisted upon from Revenue Department and the requirement is wihout authority and amounts to afuitrary exercise of power by the 1st respondent. On the other hand, leamed Advocates General appearing for Urban Oevelopment Authorities in respective States contend that the challenge to impugned letter is unfounded and that a reading of provisions of Act 1 of 1975 and/or Acl 3 of 2006 by appellants is completely enoneous and liable to be rejected in limini. Accotding to the learned Advocates General, imposition of conversion of land tax on land used for non-agricultural purpose should not be confused with either development charges paid to an aulhority or change of land use permined through a nolification under Acl 1 of 1975 which is for a different purpose and has nothing to do with he payment ot land conversion tax under Act 3 of 2006. According lo them, fle appellants are completely ignoring the legislalive history oI Act 14 of 1963 which was repealed hrough Act 3 of 2005 and the scope and ambit of re-enactment viz., Act 3 ol 2006- The object and purposes of Act 1 of 1975 and/or Act 3 of 2006 are distinct, operate in diflerent spheres and there is no overlapping of subject matler as contended by the appellants. Slrong reliance on the statement ol obiecls and reasons, scope and levy under Act 14 of '1963 and Act 3 of 2006 has been placed to conteM hat under Act 14 of 1963 NALA Tax was levied for a Fasli (yeao upon usage of any land icr non-agricultural purpose. The Government was levying and demanding NALA lax for use of he total extent of agncultural land for non agricultural pupose and however levy ot NALA Tax under Acl l4 of 1963 on account of ratio of Federation ol A.P- Chambers'case was restricled to lhe exact extent of land used by an occupier lor non-agricultuaal purpose. The Government, with a view lo addressing lhe basis of adjudication in Federation ol A.P. Chambers' case and also in the place of annual levy ot NALA Tax, enacled Act 3 of 2006 provrdiog for rmposition ol conversion hx lor use ofagricultural land lor non-agricultural purpose. According to he respondents, the levy and demand of conve.sion tax under Acl3 of 2006 is different and distinct from development charges pard under Section 14 read wilh Sections 27 tl 29 of Act 1 of 1975. According to the learned counsel, the contention raised on Sectjon 7 of Act 3 of 2006 is misconceived and liable lo be @tecled in limini, lor Seclion 7 deals wih stabtory exemption granted to a few classes of lands specilied in the Section and grant further exemption to a class ol lands lrom the application ot Act 3 of 2006. Therefore, accodjng to the counsel, lhe notilication, even if issued, under Act 1 ol 1975 has no application to claim exemption from either payment o, conversion Tax or applicability of provisions of Act 3 oI 2006. Fu(her, if the basis of appellants' case namely lhal lhe Acts are covering the same subiect and ovedapping, is reiected and no exception for levy and demand of conversion tax vis-a vis developrYlent charges can be taken. The leamed Advocate General for the State of Telangana has relied upon decisions in Firm Ram Krishna Ramnath Agarwal v. Secretary, Municipal Committeer Kimplee:*, [UsJaln 8ros. v. the Union ot lndia-, Kewal Krishan Puri t8l m v. State oI eunJatg, Govind Saran Ganga Saran v- commissioner o( Sales Tar@ and Municipal Council, Kota, Rajasthan v. Delhi cloth & General Mills Co. Ltd., Delh#X. The leamed Advocates General pray for drsmissal of the appeals,belitions. ln orderto appreciate the contentions raised by the parlies, it would be necessary to refer to history, scope/object and salienl leatures ol Acts t4 of 1963, 3 of 2006 and 1 of 1975. The salient leatures are examrned with the assistance ol basic ards of rnterpretation ol statules and to determine whether these enaclments operale in the same sphere or not The reoeal of Act 14 of 1963 and enactment ot Act 3 ol2(x)6. As already noted. lhe levy ollax on agricultural land for non-agricultural use was introduccd through Act 14 of 1963. The Tahsrldar under Secton 3 ol Acl 14 of 1963 was authorized to levy non,agricuilural land tax for use of agflcullural land lor non'agricultural purpose As per Section 3 of Act 14 ol '1963, NALA tax was levied tor diflerent purposes at lhe rates specilled rn the schedule appended lo the Act The assessment ol lax rs ,or Fasli (year) and NALA Tax was levied lor he use of agdcuthtrat land for resrdential, commercial end industrial purpose, as the case may be. Secton 4 ot Acl 14 ol 1963 empowered the Tahsildar to determine and demand NALA tax lor non- agricultLrral uSe ol aqrjcultural land ln Fede.ation of A.P. Chambe6' case, the Apex Court has laid down the princrpte of law lha: NALA tax can be levred only on the land actually used for any of he purposes specified in schedule of Act 14 of 1963. but not on enltre land owned by an occupier. The sequel ol Federation of A.P_Chambers, case iltustratively stated that the assessee who possesses an exlenl ot Ac.10{0 lor running an industry is required lo pay NALA Tax only ior lhe exlenl ol land aclually used lor non-agricuttural purpose vrz Buildings. Factory ancrllary facilitres and nol on vacant land held as adjuncl or otherwrse lo the main purpose of establishmenl by the occupier. The principle ol taw tard down in Federalion of A.P.Chambers' case was narrowed down the apptication o, Acl 14 ot 1963 in recovering NALA Tax. Therelore, Acl 14 ot 1963 was repeated through Act 3 ot 2006- The Stalement of Objects and Beasons ol Act 3 ol 2006 reads hus. The Andhra Pradesh Noo Agricultural tand Ags6smenl Acl, 1963 provides lor lhe levy ot assessment ol lands used tor Non-agricuttural p(rrposes. The "Non agriculrural tand" as defined urder Section 2(g) ol the Act. means Land other than lhe land used exclusively for lh€ purpose ol agriculture bul does nol include the land used exclusively lor (i) Cafte sheds (ll) hay ricks Seclion 3 oI the Acl, 15 the charging section atccordirE to lhe areas and rates indicated in lhe Schedule lherein. The Schedule sets out the rates ol assessment per Sqr. Mtr. ol land used per Fasli year (a) lor industrial purpose;(b) for commercEl purpose; and (c) fo. any other Non-agricuiturat purpose including residenlral purpose. The High Court of A P. in S.V.Cements Ltd., vs. R.D.O., Nandyat aM others (1993 (2) ALT 32) intepreted lhe word.used recurring in Section 3 and lhe Schedule o{ the said Act means nol only actually use{ but atso means any land meanr to be used or sel aparl frorn being used_ On appeal, the Apex Coun in the Federation ot A.p. Chamber of Commerce and Induslry and others vs_ State ol A.p., (C.A.No.lO39/2000) on (X.08.20O0 held that il is only the land which is actuelly in use for an irdustrial pu$ose as delined in lhe Act thar can be assessed to non- agricultural assessment at lhe rate specified for land used for lndustrial purpGes. lf the Supreme Courl orders are implemented by chargirE NALA, the demand will go down to 75olo ot the totaldemand. The Governmenl have evolved New lndustrial policy and orders were issued exempting all Industrial units from levy of NALA wih etfecl from 01 44-2000 to 3l -3-2005. AccordirEly, Government have deci(tud to abolish NALA by repealing The Ardhra Pradesh Non-Agricultu.al land Assessment Act, 19(Xl in its present lorm ard to introduce levy in lumpsum at the rate of 10ol. (Ten percent) ol the basic value of the land in arrears as may be lixed by lhe Governrnent lrom time lo time as one time measure at the tme ol corwersion by undertaking a spcitic legislation. This Bill seeks to give efrect to the above decision." The statement of obiects and reasons clearly shows that the enactrnent of Act 3 ol 2006 is to regulate he conve.sion of agricultural land to non-agncultural purposes for matters connected herewih or incidental thereto. The preamble of Act 3 of 2006 provides for repealing Act '14 of 'l 963. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in State ot Guiarat v. Marzapur HoU Kureshi Kassab Jamal and others@ laid down the interpretaDve utjlity of statemenl of objects and reasons in construing a stahJte. The relevant portion reads frus: "Reference to the Statement ot Objects and Reasons is permissible for understardirE fte background, antecedent stale ol aflairs in relaton to lhe statrie, and fle evil which the statute has sought to remedy- The facts stated in the preamble and the Statement of Obiects and Reasons appended to any legislation are evilence of the legislalive judgment. They indrcale the thought process of the elected representatives ol the people and their cognizance ol the prevalent state of affairs, impelling lhem to enact the law." A statute is he highest constitutonal formulation of law. The means by which he Suprerne Legislature, after fullest deliberations, expresses its Iinal will. A clear distinction exisb between a repeal srmiplrciter and a repeal and re- enactment by lhe legislature. Likewise, the leqal position as to where there is a repeal of an enactanent and simultaneous re€nactrnent and whether lhe re enacted law manilests an intention incompadble wilh or contary to the provisions of the repealed provisions ofhe re-enacted enactrnent is examined. Therefore, this Court while interpretng the scope and ambit etc., otAct 3 of2006 must bear in mind the law subsisting when Act 3 of 2006 has come into operation. lt is desirable and imperadve to go through [he then exisling legislalion, it any, and obtain its clear understanding vis-a-vis Act 3 of 2006 and the necessity lor ftesh declaration of law by he State Legislature. Thus viewed, Act '14 ol '1963 has been in force from 1963 till 2006- Under Section 3 of 14 of '1963, NALA tax was paid for non-agricultural use of agricultural land. The Apex Court in Federation of A.P Chambe6's case has reslricted he levy and demand of NALA tax only to the actual use ofagricultural land for non-agricultural purpose by an assessee under the Act and not on the total agricultural land held by an occupier for non-agricultural purpose. Theretore, the State Legislalure with a view to removing the difficulty caused by the decision in Federation ot A.P.Chambers, repealed Act 14 ol 1963 and enacted Act 3 of 2006 lt ls not the case of appellanls that between 1964 and 2006 NALA tax was not levied by lhe Tahasildar lor the urban properties notified under Act 1 of 1975- The levy of non agricultural land assessment tax, however, was imposed from 1964 till 2002-2003 and development charges were recovered as and when application under Section 14 of Act I of 1975 was made lor grant of permission to the Urban Development Authority. The preamble and the short tit e of the Act ctearly suggest that Act 3 ol 2006 is repealing Acl 14 of 1963 and the Act 3 of 2006 is intended to regulate the conversion of agncultural land to non-agricultural purposes Act 3 of 2006 regulates conversion ot agricultural land tor non,agricultural purposes and levy of tax for such conversion of land is provided tor under Acl 3 of 2006 Section 2(a) of Act 3 of 2006 defines agricutture as raising any crop or garden produce; or orchards or pastures or hayricks and Section 2(b) defines agflcultural land as land used for agricullure Under Section 2(c), fle word conversron means change of land use from agricultural to non-agaiculfural purposes. Non agrlcultural land means land other than lhe agricultural land. Section 3 imposes restriction on convcrsion ol agricultural land to non-agriculfural purpose without prior permissron of the competent authority. The procedure for obtaining permrssron is covered by Section 4, and the Act authorizes granl of regulation ol conversion ot land and one time levy and colleclion ol non- agricultura landlax. From the scheme ol the Act, it is evident that penalry ls provlded for default n payment of NALA tax and collection oI land conversion tax wih fne at 50% of NALA tax Every owner or occupier of agriculture land is under obligation to pay convers on tax at lhe rate of97" for use of agriculfural lafld for non-agriculfural purposes. The schcme of Act 3 of 2006 firstly is a one time imposition of tax, while regulating the conversion of agricuilural land to non,agricultural purposes. The tax rs payable lo the Government and the object and intendment of Act 3 of 2006 thus is regulation of land conversion and imposition ol tax for such land conversion. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants contend that with the issuance of a not lication under Section 12 ol Act 3 of 2006 is available to the notified lands under Act 1 oI 1975, and no land Act 1 of'1975, exemptjon under Section 7 of conversion lax need be paid under Act 3 of 2006. ln olherwords, il is contended that with the issuance of a notfication by the Govemmenl for change ol development use, there is aulomatic conversion of agriculfural land for non-agricultural use and thereby lhe applicability o, Act 3 of 2006 is exempted. ln support of this submission, some ol the appellanls rely upon land use notification issued under Section 7 of Act 1 of 1975 or particular change of land use permitted through individual notilications issued under Section 12 ol Act 1 ot 1975. Accoding to the leamed counsel lor appellants, he preparation and llnalizalion of master plan and zonal developrnent plan under Act 1 of 1975 or issuance ol a nolifcation under Section 12 of Act 1 ol 1975, by legal ficlion deemed change of land use is occasioned and agan the levy of tax for conversion ol land use is unavailable. The submission does not stand to the scrutiny ol literal interpretatjon of Section 7 ofAct 3 of2006. Section 7 of Act 3 of2006 read as foltows: Acl not lo aoolv to c.rtaln lar|dsl NolhirE in ths Act shait appty ro- (a) Lands o$fied by the Stale Govemment ; (b) t-ands omled by a local edhorty ard used lor any commu^ar pu.poses so tong as ihe lard is not us€d lo. cornmerrEt p./rposes ; (c) L-anG used lor.eligious or ctHriraHe ptFp(tses ; (d) Lards used by oll,ner lor ho ehdd i.drsties invotuing lradriio.at occupalDn, rpl ercs€dng on€ acre ; (e) Lands us€d for srch other Brposes as may be notilied by rhe Govc.nment rrom (l) Lands used tor Aquac!,llur6, Dairy and Pouhry.la Section 2 (d) (xi) defines notifcation hus xr) -Nor,ficarion' means a mtification q./Uished in th€ Andhra Pradesh Gazelle. and lhe word tlolified shall b corEtrued accodngly The literal constructon of Seclion 7 ol Act3 of2006 exempls lands owned by lhe State Govemment; fie local authority: lands used icr @mmunal purposes and so tong as lhe lands are not used for commercial purposes; land used for religious or charitable purposes; land used by owner ol household industry involving traditional occupaton not exceeding one acre. A few inbuill or stafutory exemptions are provided ln lhe Section dealing with exemplion. Through clause (e) of Section 7, power rs conferred on the Governmenl to exclude application of Acl 3 ol 2006 for lands used fo. such other purposes, as may be notifed by lhe Govemment lrom tirne to [me. Section 7 (e) of Act 3 ot 2006 confe.s power on the Govemment to consider issuance of a notiticalion under SecDon 7 of Acl3 of 2006, including a category ofagdculiJrat tand lrom operatron ofAct 3 ol2006. Stated in sinq,le expression,lhe Govemment may under Section 7 of Act 3 ol 2006 issue a nolification exempting a category or class of lands from the application of Act 3 ot 2006. ln oher words, hd masbr plan or zonal developmenl planlndividual change o, user notificalions issued under Act 1 o11975, will not exempl (he appticabitity ol Acl 3 of 2006. Therefore, the notificaton even, i! any, issued uoder Acl I of 1975, cannot be either conlended or by necessary implication understood as excluding applicatron ol Act 3 of 2006. For he abov€ reasons, the contendon urged under by relying on Section 7 (e)ol Act 3 of2006 is wihout merit and is accordingty rejected The scope and ambll of lhe Andhra Pradesh ljrtan Areas aoevetoomen0 Act t975 aAcl 1 ot 1975): The learned counsel for appeltants by placing reliance upon the scheme ol Act I of '1975 conlends that lirstly the comprehensive development in a nob[ied area underAct 1 of 1975 is laken care by Ac1 1 of 1975 and with the issuance of nolrfcaton under this Act, the change ol lser is ettecte and no furlher conversion of agriculfu.e land can be envisaged or payment of land conversion tax would arise. On the conlrary, lhe leamed Advocates General appeadng lor respondents contend that these two enactmenb have distincl purposes and that levy ol land conversion lax under Act 3 of 2006 is by way ol tax at the lime of conversron ol aqricullure land ,or non agriculture purposes and levy ol developmenl fee under Act 1 of 1975 is Ior development use of notified land, particularly at the tjme of development ol property ,n the no(ified area- The developmenl fee is paid to the Utuan Developmenl Authority. which is vested with the responsibility of overall development ol urban area- We propose lo examine the salient lealures of Acl 'l of 1975 and answer lhese rssLres The preamble of Act 1 o, 1975 states lhat Acl 1 of 1975 is enacted lo provide lor the development ol urban areas n the Slate ol Andhra Pradesh according to plan and for matters ancrllary thereto From the preamble, it ls evidenl that Acl 1 ol 1975 is intended lo provrde lcr developmant ol nolrfied urban areas according to the master plan and for matlers ancrl ary therelo We proceed 10 nterprcl lre relevant provisions of Acl 1 of 1975 by reading he language ol slalute as t rs The words cmployed rn the statute are given nafural and ordinary meaninO and lhat by harmoniously consttuing all the impotunt seclions ol the nct, the scheme ol the Acl lS dotorm r,ed Seclioo 2 (e) developmeil' rvith ils grammatical yarialions rneans lhe carry,ng oul ol all o. 3ny ol lhe \i/orks contemplated in a mastef plan oa zonal dcvelopmenl plan reierred Io in lhls Act. and the carrying out of bulldihg, engineering. nlinioq or olh,-.r operatrons in, on, over or under land, or lhe making ol any mateflal change in any building o( land and includes redevelopmenl: Provided lhal lor the purpos€s ol lhis Act. the tollowing operations or uses Io involve development of the land thal is to sey- of land shall nol b€ de€med The carrying ou1 ol any lemporary works for the malnteoance, improvemenl or other alteration ol any building, being works which do not malerially affect lhe exlernal appearance ot lhe building; The carrying oul by a local aulhorily ol any te{nporary works requlred for lhe nraintenance or improvemenl of a road, or works carrled oul on laod within the boundaries ot the roacl; The carrying out by a local aulhority or statutory undertaking o, any lemporary works lor lhe purpose ol inspecting, repaiaing or renewing any sewers, maans. pipes, cables or olher apparatus, including lhe breaklng open ol any streel or olher land for that purpose; The use of any buildino or olher land within the carlilage purpose incidental lo the enjoyment ol lhe dwelling house as such; and The Lrse ol any land lor lhe purpose ol aqriculture, gardening or forestry(includrng atforestation) and lhe use tor any purpose specified in this clause ol any building occupied together with land so used" (i) (ii) (iiD (iv) (v) Section 2 (e) defnes development as carying out all or any wo*s contemplated in (l) master plan, (ll) zonal development plan refe(ed in Act 'l of 1975 and development means carrying out building, engineering, mining or other operations in, on, over or unde.land- Development means making any material change in any building or land and re{evelopment. Through proviso, the tollowing acts are not lreated as development for he purposes of the Act. a) Temporary wo.ks which do not materially afll-.ct the appearance of he building b) Carrying out lhe works within lhe road alignment c) Repairs to sewers and drains etc. d) Any ancillary work canied out for use ot any building or carli lage. e) Use of land lor agnculture, gardening or foresfy pulposes. The definition of the word development' on he one hand is comprehensive and on the other, a lew activrties though satisfy the meaning ol developmenl, stifl are exciuded lrom the meanrng ofdevelopment. Such exclusion is provided to avoid undue hardshrp in carrying out a few activities in a notified area. Seclion 2ff):'developdieot area means any urban arca or group o, urban areas declared to b€ a developdrent area undea sub.section (1) ot Sec on 13. Section 2 (0 delines development area as urban area or group o[ urban areas declared under Secton 13(1) of Act 1 ol t975. Development area. herelore, consists ol any urban area or group o[ urban areas declared to be a developrnent area under sub'section (1) of Section 13. Seclion 2fol:-urbao area meansi (0 (i0 the area comprised within the jurisdiction of the Municipat Corporation ot Hyderabad or ol any Uunicipalily constituled unde, the Andh.a pradesh Municipalitiel Acl, t955 and also Eny such area in the vicinity as the Govern.rEht may, having regard to the extent of, and lhe scope for, lhe urbanization of thel area or other relevanl consideaationq specify ln lhis behaH, by notification; and such other are, as the Goyernrienl may, by notification, declare to be an urban area, which in the opinion of the Gove.nancrt is likely to be urbanlzed. Seclion 2 (o) cove.s Municrpal Corporation ol Hyderabad o. any area covered by any municipalrty constituted under the Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Acf, 1965 together with such aiea in he vicinity of he Municipal Corporatioir or municipality, as fie case may be, which has the potential for urbanizalion. The Govemrnent by issuing notification declare any area as urban area which has the potential ofurbanization. Section 2 Io): 'zone' rEans any one of lhe divisions lnto whlch the development area may be divided lor the purposes of development under this Act' Section 2 (p) means zones as one ol the divisions ol development area divided for the purpose ol development L,nder this Act. The divisions of zones are - residential, commercial. industrial elc. Seg!la!-.1o: Civic survey of and Master Plan lor development area:- (1) The Authorhy shall, as soon as may be, carry oul a civic survey o, aM prepare a Ilraster Plan for the developnlenl area concerned- (2) The Masler Plan shall- (a) define lhe various zones into which the development area may be divided lo. the purposes ol deyeloprnent and indicale lhe manner in which the land in e3ch zone is proposed to be us€d (either alter carrying out developmenl thereon or otherwise) and lhe slages by which any such development shall be cartied oul; and (b) serve as a basic pallern o{ lrame-work withrn which the zonal development plans ot the various zones may be prepared. (3) The Master Plan may provide {or any other maller which is necessary for the proper developmenl oI lhe development area. @llielz: Zonal developmenl plans:- (1) Srmullaneously with lhe preparation ol Master Plan or as soon as may be thereaher lhe Authority shall proceed with the preparalion ol zonal development plan lor each ol the zones into which the developmenl area may be divlded. (2) A zonal developrnent plan may, (a) conlain a sile plan and land us€ plan lor lhe development ol the zone and show lhe approximale locarions and extents of land uses proposad in the zones lor such purposes as roads- housing, schools, recreatioh. hospilals, induslry, business, markels. pubiic works and ulillties, public buildings, public and privale open spaces and olher calegories ol public and private (b) specily the slandards of populatron density and building densiy; @ show every area in lhe zone vrhich may- in lhe opinron ol the Authorily, b€ required or declared lor developmenl or redevelopmenti and (d) in particular, contarn prcyrsrons rega.dinq all or any of the tollovring Inatlers, namely- (i) the division of sny srte into piol: for thc .rcclofl ol bulldingsi (ii) the allolment or reservallon ol linds for roads, open spaces, gardens, recreation grounds, schools, markets and other public purposes; Seclion 6 obligales conduct of crvrl survey and preparation of masler plan for development area i.e. urban area or group of urban areas declared under Section l3(l ) of Act 1 of 1975. The zonal deve opment area takes care ol various development plans envisaged in master plan Section 13: Declaralion ot developm€nl areas and development ol land in lhose and other areas:- (1) As soon as rnay be afler the comrnencernent ot this Act, where Governmenl consider it necessary to do so for purposes ot propet developmenl ol any rirban area or group ol urban areas ih lhis Slate they may, by notilication, dectare such urban area or group of urban ateas to be a development area [or the purposes of this Act. (2) The Government may, by notification and in accordance with such rules as may be made in this b€half- (a) exclude lrom a development area any area comprised therein: or (b) include in developrnenl area any other area. (3) Save as otherwise provided in this Acl, the Aulhority shall not undertake or carry oul any deve{opment of land in any area whrch is nol a developrnent atea, (4) After lhe commencemenl ol this Acl, no developrn€nl ol land tvithin the developneit aaea shall be undertaken o, carried oul by any person oa body including any deparllfPnl of lhe Governmeot, unless permission tor such in wriling laom ihe Aulho.ity ln actordance development has beeo obtain€d with the provisions ol this Act. (5) After the coming inlo operation of any ol the plans in any a.ea ryithin the developmeflt area, no development shall b€ undertaken or carrled out ln that area unless srich develoFnent is also in acc{rdance with such plans. (6) Notwithstanding anything in any other law o. th€ provislong contained ln (4) and (5), development of any land undortaken in accordance sub-s€ctions wlth any law by any pe6on or body includtng any department ot the Government or any local authority belore the commencernefll ot this Act, nray b€ compleled without compliance with the requireEtents of those sub- sections. Provided that such developmeol o, land shall bo complsted withln ohe year trom the dale o[ commenc€oEnt of this AcI; unlqss the Authorhy lor good and suflicient reasonsr exlends the said perlod of oie yaar for sarci further perl)d as at deefts lil. (7) Afler the @mmencelllont of this Act, no deyeloprnent ol land shafi be uoderlaken or car ed out by any p.son or body including any departrEtt ol lhe Gove.hmeot in such are6 adioining to or in the vicinity ot the developme t area, as may be flotilied by lhe Governrneflt unl€ss approval ol or sanc,tio.l fot such developmenl has been obtained in writing l.om the local arlhodty concerned, in accordance with the provislons of relerant law rclating thereto, Includlng the law reiating to tourn planning tor the tinre being irr lorce a,rd the rules and regulations rnade thereunder Provided that lhe local aulhority concerned riay, in coosuhalk n rith the Aulhority, fran)e or suitably anEnd lts regulations in their rypllcation lo guctt area adioining lo or in the vicinity ol the developnront a.ea. 8Xa) Where any parl ol the a.ea adjoining to o. in the vtclnity ot the development area, as notiried under sub-sectlon (4, is in tho process of tapH develop.nent or Is likely to devetop in the near future, the local authority concerned shall, eithd on the direclion ot the Government or on lhe advk e ot lhe Aulhority, prepare in consultatioo with the Authority, town planning schem€ under the laly relating lo Town Phnntng, tor the tirlE being in torce, and publish lhe schernes as required under that liaw and submlt ttEfil to uE Governmeril lor sanction. (b) Any developdEnt in lhe area covered by srch town plannirlg satEanes shall be in acrordance whh the provisions ol the schori€s as sanctioned by the GoveannEol. @ Wher! in regard to lhe matlers specified ln sutssection(7) and ol fhis erb- sectlon there Is a dit 6eoce of oplnion bety,aen ttre local aulhortty concerned and lhe Aulho.ity, the matte. shall be relerred to the Govemmeot, whose decision thereon shall be final. (9) ln this section, and in Sections'14, 16 afld 4l the exprasslon ,Dopanmed ol ttle Governm€nl means any departmeol, organlzallon oa pqbllc uBdedakiog oI the Slale Gove{nm€nl or ol the Cent.al G overn rnenl. With the cornrnencement ol Act I of 1975, lhe Govemment considers necessary lor proper developmenl of any urban area or group of urban areas io lhe Shle, dec{ares such ulban area or group ol t rban areas to be a development area fo{ the puapose ol this Act and declaration of urban a.ea to be a development area lor the purpose ol this Act. The Section mandates that development shall be stricty in accordance wilh lhe development notified under the Act A pe6on @nstnrcling a building ordeveloping land in a developrnenl area applies to he auhority brpermission to construct a building or develop laod in accordance wilh he development plan. Srq!ig!-!4: Application for permission:- (1)Every person or body including a Oepartment ot the GoverhEEnt desiring to obtain the permissioh referred to an Seclion t3 shali make an application in writing to the Authority in such lorm and containing such parliculars in respect of lhe developmedl lo which the epplication relates as may b€ determined by regulalions. (2) Every applicatioh unde. sub-section (t) shall be accompanied by suc-h tee as may be prescribed and a copy ot the title deed of lhe land duly attested by a Gazetted Ofticer of the Government logether with an urban land ceiling clearance certificate if lhe ertent of the land erceeds lhe ceiling limil or an atfidavit declaflng that the lotal extent ol land by such holder, or his or her spouse and uhmarried children does not exceed the ceiling limit. Provided lhat no such tee shall be necessary in the case of an application made by a Oepariment ol the Government, or any local authorily. (3) On receipt ol an application for permission under sub-seclion (l) lhe Authority, afler making such enquiry as it consider necessary, rn relation lo ahy matler specified in clause {d) ol sub.section (2) ol Section 7, or in relatioh to any other matler, shall by order in wriling erlher grant the permission, subiect lo such conditions, if any. as may be specilied in lhe order o. refuse to granl such permission- (4) Where permission is retused. the grounds ol such relusal shall tle tecorded in wriling and communicaled lo the appkcanl rn the manher delermined by requlations. (5) ll, within ninety days after lhe receipl o{ any applicalion made under lhis section for peamissiOn, Or Of any inlo.matron or lurlher inlormaiion required under rules or regulalions, the Aulhority has neithe. qranted nor refused its permission, such p€rmission shall be deemed lo have been granted. and lhe applicant may proceed to carry oLrl lhe developmenl bul nol so as lo contrav€ne any of lhe provisions of this Act or any rules or regulations made under this Act- (6) The Authority shall keep a reqisler of apphcalrons lor permission under this seclion in such lorm as rnay Lle delernrined by r€qulations. (7) The said register shallcontain such parlrculars rncludlng intormation as to the manner in v,,hich applicalions lor permission have been dealt wilh. as may be determined by regulalions and shall be availeble lor inspeclion by any member ot lhe public durinq specilied hours on payment ol such ,ee, nol exceeding live, as may be determined by regulations. (8) Where permission is rcfused under lhis seclion lhe applicant or any Fprson claihing through him shall not b€ enlitled lo ger re{und oI the fee paid oh lh€ application lor perrnission. Under Section 14, every oerson desinng to oblarn the permission referred to in Section 13 shall make an applicahon to the authonty and the application contains such padiculars in respect of the development to whrch the applrcatjon .elates, as may be determined by the regulations. Section 14 (2) provides lor payment of fee as may be prescribed and Section 14(3) provides for enquiry o, application received under sub- section (1) ot Section 14 and the enquiry lor the purpose of sub-section (3) is in respect of matters specilied in clause (d) of sub seclion (2) ol Section 7 Therelore, the person intending to obtain permiss,on has to stale delails ol development and the development prescribed by regulations and obtain permission for execuling development as per development plan. Seqtion'15: Use ol lhe land and buildings in conlravention ol plans:- Afler lhe coming into operation of any of the plans in a zone, no person shall use or pe.mil to be used any land ot buildlng in that zone olheawise than in conformity with such plan: P.oyided that it shall b€ lawful to @ntinue to use upon such terms and conditlons as rEy be detetmined by regulatlons made in this behalf, any land lor whic{, and to lhe exleot to whlch, it is being or buildlng for the purpos€ usei on the dale on which suclt plan coarles inlo lor@. ' Likewise, Section '15 prohibitrs use of land and buildings in a nodfied development area in c!ntavention olthe zonal development plan and alsg prohibib he authodlies lrom granting permission for development except in accordance wilh he zonal development plan. Sgdiao2l: Levy of the developrnent chargesi (1) Sublect lo the provislons ol this Act and the rules made lhereunder, the Authority shall levy cha,ges (hereinafter called the development charges) on the institulion or (sic- ot) use or change of use ol lafid or building or developrfloot of any land ot building tor which permission is required under this Acl in the whob area o. any part ot Ihe dcvelop.nent area within the marimum rate specitied in Section 28' Provided that the rales ol developrnenl charges may be dilferent for diffeaent parts ol the developmeflt area and for diflermt uses: Provided turther thal the trevious saoclion ol lhe GovernrEnl has t eell oblained lor the rales ol l,evy. (2) Whe.e the Authority has determined to levy development chatges for the lirsl linle or at a new rate, it shall torthwilh publish a nolificatlon sP€ctfyinq tho rates ot levy of developmenl charges- (3)The developrneflt chatges shall be leviable on any pe.son who lnsllltrtes oa chaages any such uses, underlakes or carries out any such deYeloPment. (4) Notwilhstandidg anylhing codlaind in sub.socllons (1) and (2), no development charges shall be levied on inslittition ot use or ol change ot use o. development ol. any land or building vested ln or und€r the contrcl or possession o, the Cenlral or the Slate Governftenl or o( any local authority. Under Section 27, lhe authonty is empowered to levy development chaqes on the institution ot use as per the zonal development plan: lor charges for change of use of land or building, development ol any Iand or building for which permission is required under Act I ot 1975- The developmenl charges payable under this Section arc icr inslitution of use: change of use ol land or building or developrnenl ol any building or area lor which a permission is required. From the nature of levy under Section 27, it is discemible that the levy is a charge payable fo. underlaking development as per lhe notilied zonal development plan lo Urban Development Authority. S€ction 28: Rates ol Developmenti (lxa) Fo. the purpose ol asscssing the development charges, the use ol land and bsildiog shall be cl6sitied unde. the following c.legorlos: (l)lndrrstrial; (li) Commercjal; (iii) Residenrial; (iv) Agrftrltural; and (v) fliscellan€ous. (b) ln classifying the use of land and building under any of the categories mentioned in clause (a), the Predominant purpose lot whk$ suct land and building a.e used shall be the main basis tot such dasslfication. (2) The rates ot develoFrl€nt dtarges shall be d€le.nirEd on ttE proposed use ol land or buildingi (a) in the case ol deyc{opment of land, at a rate to te presc.ibed per hecla.e lor that area- (b) in the case of devetopmenl of bu ding, at a rate to be prescrlb€d per square melre o[ floor area for lhat area; (Provided that such rates ol development cha.ges shall not exced rupees three hund.ed per square rneter in lhe case of developmenl ot land and rupees one hundred and twenty five per square meter in the case of development ot bullding). Provided lurther that where land appu enant to a buildinE is used fo. any purpose independent ol the buitdinq, development charge may be levied separately for the building and the tand." The developrnent charges are payabte according to the broad classrficalion staled in Section 28 of the Act. Section 29 provides lor assessment and recovery of development charges by fie authority from the applicant developing a property_ Before concluding the scope and the ambit of various aspects na tety tong title, prcamblc, dcfinitions, enacting clause or lormu,a, operative and princrpal provtsrons and administratrve p.ovtsions of Acl I of I975, we deem jt appropriate to refer lo the Urban Development Auhority Rules, 1977. tustratively stated, the rates ot development charges u,]der Section 28 are as rorlows,. For Land 12 For Burlt up area Olher & Gram For rnstitution of use or change ol use a. vacant b Besidenrat b Vaont b Commercial . Va.antro lndusriat d VacanrloMrsc€llaneous I Cha.ge olland use a Rec.eatonal to Besiden!at b Besoali,onal lo Comm4id c Recrealional b hduslriat d Receationat rD Misce(aneoLrs e Agicufl uEyconseNation o. Green Eelt to Residential r00 60 60 100 60 60 75{ 3o 30 r00 50 125 125 125 60 l0 l0 200 225 2@ 20{ r()o 50 r:o 60 r00 60 r00 50 100 100 r00 60 45 60 60 m 15,0 100 50 75 45 From the above, it is clear lhat a person interested in developmenl ol a land/plotbuilding is required to pay the above development charges lo the authority under Act 1 of 1975. The levy of devetopment charges is lor institution of use r.e., ttre notilled use in the zonal development plan, conversion lee for change ol developmenl use trom residential tl commercialor as the case may be. Likewise, conve$ion ol land use hom recreaton tl residendal, residenlial to commercial eb, is provided subiecl to paymenl of development charges as applicable to a category. Therefr,re, the main obiect of Act 'l ol 1975 is lor development ol utban areas according to master plan/zonal development plan and provide for matters ancillary thereto The short ti e of Act 1 ol '1975 further reinforces the scope and obiect of Act 1 of '1975 as an enacunent intended lor planned developrnent of notifed urban areas. Act I of 1975 defines development and provides lor planned development ol urban areas. To remove dilfcullies in implementalion of Act 1 ot 1975, a lew development activities are rernoved lrcm developrnent area,/urban area together wrth the obligation to apply for permission undel Sections 13, '14 and 15 of Act 1 oI 1975 and his would go to show that the Act is primarily concemed wih developrnent of "Llrban area" in accordance wih master plan/zonal developmenl plan. ln the process, the development charges are paid lor ins0tution of use or change o[ land use, and lhe paymenl ot development fees are att ibutable towards development charges payable to an authority under the Act by a developer of buildingrand etc., as the case may be, bul nol a conversion fee as contended he appellants. Re-stated with emphasis, in our considered view, Act I of 1975 defines development, declares urban areas lor developmenl and provides for civic survey and preparation of zonal development plan by the authority A person. who undertakes either construction ot a building or developmenl ot land as required to pay development fee under Seclions 14 and 21 ol Act I ot 1975 to the Urban Development Auhoity lor undertaking developmentas provided rn the zonal developmenl plan. ln a given case, il on the application ol a developer, change ol land user is granted lhrough a nolificetion under Section 13 or Secdon 15, such change ot land use enables the applicant to take up developrnent contrary to notilied master parvzonal development plan already nolified under Seclion 7 ol the Act. Thereafter, lhe prohibition contained under Section 1 5 ol trle Act is not atlracted to such development. Therefore, notilication under Act 1 of 1975 kom any view poinl cannot be treated as a conveEion of land lrom agriculture purpose b non-agrioJltJre purpose, From the scherne ol Act 3 o12006, we are of the view that conversion tax is payable tor-use ol agncultural land lor non-agricultural puPose lo the Govemmenl, whereas development tee is payable under Aci 1 of 1975 by a developer ot building/land for lnstitution of use or change of land use to Urban Development Auhority. These two levies namely lhe land @nve6ion tax under Act 3 of 2006 and he development tee for development according lo masler plan/zonal development plan are separate aod dislinct. ln lfunbhal Council, Kota, Ralasthan's case, while considering fie impact of name ol a levy, the Apex Court held thus: -Whenever e[s' Associa lbn v The Union of lndie a a challenge is made to the levy of tar, its vafidity may have to be mainly determined with relerence to the legislative competence or power lo levy lhe same aM in adludging this issue the nature and character of the tax has to be inevitably delermlned at the lhreshold. tr is equal,y ariomatic that once the tegislalure concerned has been held tc possess the power to levy the tax, lhe motive with whjch the tax is imposed become immaterial and irrelevanl and ttle fact that a wrong reason for exercisnq the power has been given also would not in any manner derogate from the validity ol lhe tax. tn M/s Jultundur Rubber Goods ArR (1970) SC 1589 lhis Coud whrle dealing wilh a challenge to the levy of rubber cess under Sectron 12 (2) of the Rubber Act. 1947 as amended in 1960 observed that the tax in the nature ol excise duly does not cease to be one such merely because the stage o{ levy and collection has been as a maner ol legislative policy shifted by aclually providiog lor ils levy and collection from lhe users ol rutber, so tong as the characler o, the duty as excise duty is not lost and the ncilence ot laj( remained to be on the production or manulacfure of goods Ukewise, once the legislature is lound lo possess the required legislative compelerrce to enacl lhe law imposing the tar. the limils ol that competence cannot be iudged further by the lorm or manner in which lhal power is exercGed_ ln (Morris) Leventhal and Others v David Jones. Ltd. AIR (t930) PC 129, the questjon arose as to lhe porver of the legistature lo imoosc Bridge Tax', when the Flower to legislale was really in respect of tar orl land llwas held therein as lolows: *The appellants'contention that though direc y imposed by Ihe iegrslalure, the bridge tax is not a land lax, was swported by argument toundd rn panicular on two manifest lacts. The briJge lax does not exleM to land generalty throughoul New Soulh Wales, bd lo a limited area comprisjng the Ciry ot Sydney and cenarn specllied shires, aM the purpose ol the tax is not lhat ot provlling the pubhc revenue for the common purtrFses ot the State bul ol provding lunds lor a padrcular scheme of benerment_ No aulhority was vouched lor IIle proposition that an rnr{rsl laid by statute Upon property withio a deftned area, or upon sp€c classes ol property, or upon specified classes ol percons, ls nor within the true sgll frcance ol lhe term a lar. Nor so far as appears has it ever tEen successtully contended thal Tevenue ratsed by statulory rmposts for specitjc purposes is not taxalron' Srmilarly the contention of appellants lhat lhe conversion lax virtually amounts to double taxaion on the safite subject is misconceived and thal Ihe levy of land convers on lax as by the Govemrnent and development fee by the Urban Development Authority ln Radhakisan Rathi v. Additional Cofiector@, the Apex Courl white consrdering the compelence of diflerent auhoritjes to impose lax on he same sublect maner held lhus: ln lhe llqht ol the aforesaid relevant provisions ol tlE panchayats Acl we have to consiler the question posed lor our decision. lt is obvious that a cinema thealre situaled whhin the territoriat limils of local municipality or a corporation can be ta(ed by lhe corrcerned municipajrty in exercise ot its powers under lhe relevant Munbpat Act Bu1 d the same theatre is also situated within a block duly constituted under the Panchayals Acl it wolld tall within the territorial limits ot the concerned Janapada Panchayat consltuted lor that block as laid down by Section 103 read wilh Seclion 104 of ttre Panchayats Act Once that happens the concerned Janapada panchayat would obvously be enlited lo invoke its ta.{ation powers under Secfion 157 lor the area wrthrn (s jurisdiction ard if a theatre is situated within that area then obvjousty Seclron 157 wouh get attracted lor imposing the twin types of taxes menlrcned by StrI!2OllsZ whic+r are permissble to be imposed by the Janapada Panchayat. lt b that the same subiect matle. can be covered by taratim nets now rvell sett€d imposed by dillerent competent taxing aulhonties and th€re $/ill be no double taxation invotued in such case. We may reler in Ihis connection to the decisiofl ol this Court in the case ot @fagaol [199013 SCC 645. Para 30 ol the report at page 654 lays down as under. :3O. \irhere more than one legislalive authority, such as lhe State legbhhrre and a locaj or munbipal body possess the power lo levy a tax, there is nothing in lhe Constitution to prevent the same Prson or proPrty being subiect to both the State and muncipal taxatron or the same legislalure exercising its po\r,,/e. twice lor diflerent purposes. h-.AYiofhr Sinoh v. Slate of Puniab lhe State o, Puniab in Apr 19Z required lhe various munichal bodies in the Slale lo impose tax on lhe sale ol lndian made loreign li or @Re. 1 per bottle w.e f- May m,19n. The munbipal lo take action pursuant to the directive lhe State ol aultprilbs havirE lail€d Puniab directly issued a Nolification under Seclion 90(5) ol lhe Punab Municipal Corporation Act, 1976 alld sm ar provision o{ the MunicpalAcl, t91t. TIle petitioner challenged the constitulional valid,ty ol the sail stalutes and the levy on lhe, inter aila, ground of double laxalbn Krishna lyer, J. speakirE for the Courl held: (SCC p 1,14. para 4) -There is nothirE in Aijcle265 of the Consliluton kom whbh one can sprn oLn the Constrtutional vice called double taxaton (8ad economics may be good law and vice versa). Dealing wilh a somewhat similar argument, the Bombay Hrgh Cou( gave short shrift lo il in Westem lndla Theatres- Some urdeserving conlentbns de hard, raher survive aher death. The only epdaph we may inscribe is: Best in peace and don't be rebornr ll one tlle same subiect matter the legislalure chooses to levy lax twEe over there is no inherent irwalidity in the fiscal adventure save where other Prchbhions exist.' All he cihtons relied upon by the leamed Advocates General appearing for the States of Andhra Pradesh and Tetangana are nol considered, lor the view we have independently taken on he scope and ambitof these two enactments Having considered the provisions of both lhe enactments independently and afte. intepreling the Sections in the manner indicated above and by relying upon the principles ol law laid down by Apex Court in KSL & lnduslrbs Ltd's case, we are of the view that d1e submissions of leamed counsel appearing for the appellanls arc de void ol any merits and are accordingly relected. Hence, it is held that eiher the scope and the ambit or paym€nt of land conversion ta-x and the Developrnent ,ee under Act 3 ol 2006 and Act I of 1975 are separate and distinct. The question is answered acclrdingly- The furtier clntenlion of learned @unsel for the appellants hat the Ulban Developrnent Aufiority cannot insist upon production ot NOC ftom ReverxJe Divisional Officer under Act 3 of 2006 by reference to the penaltles provded under Seclion 6 of Act 3 ot 2006, is equatly unfounded. May be hat under Section 6 ol Act 3 ol 2006, penalty for recovery of land conversion tax with fine is provided for. Thal does not mean f'rat fle Govemment wih a view to synchronizing he lunctioning ot all the departrnents and preveot loss of revenue cannot catl upon the Urban Development Autfiority to insist production ol NOC lrom he Revonue Divisional Olficer under Act 3 ol2006. The l,Iban Developmenl Authority consfuiog stricty gets jurisdiction to enterta n an application for which conversion tax is paid under Act 3 of 2006 and the NOC can be iustified by ttlis reason as well. The lnsistence at best can be treated a concomitant and the authorities can certainly insrsl upon NOC from applicant lor processing the applicatlon made under Section 14 ol Act 1 ot 1975. For the view we have taken on questions (i)(ii) and (iii), no exception could be [ound against the impugned common order dated 29.04.2010. For the reasons stated above, the appeals are wilhout ment and accordingly dismissed As we have confirmed lhe common order dated 28.04.2010, we are inclined lo dispose ot wril pclilrons as follows: a) ll sh € competent for lhe Urban Development Autlbrilies or the Loc al AU lhorities, as lhe case may be, lo insist on submisslon ol clearance/permission under lhe 2006 Act as a condrron precedent tor releasing of layouts, ard b) lhe land has been put to non,agricuttural use bc,orc the 2006 Act came rnto lorce, such clearance/permission shalt not be insisted_ c) Converson ol land into Non aqricultural use ilrder the provisions ol Act 3 o,2006 is necessary even il the land iS Covered try Masler Plan and sanctDn ct tayoul by lhe Development Autnonly under lhe provisions ol Act 1 ol 1975. Consequcnty. mrscellaneous petitions, if any pending, also stand disposed No cosls DILIP B.BHOSALE, ACJ S.V.BHATT, J Datc.28.0a.20r5 siP "" ur*o1u a"" rro E o,^ r*o ," ,raa 0 o," rr, ,o,o u (,nro) ', ""c E ,oor1 n a"" ,u,, @ o,^ ,rra on tra Eo,R ,r* @ (r*r) a ,"" ,, , B (,geo) , s"c o,u U 1985(supp) scc 20s u 1*,1 . sc" uro @ (*), a"" ,ao @ u*r) o ,o, ,*" ,, "" """