One CC to SRl v. NI-ARASIMHA GOUD, SC FOR HMDAIOPUCI

Order

This writ petition is filed declaring the action of respondent No-1 in imposing condition No.8 in Letter No.920OlORRGC/plg/ H/2OO9, dated 07.04.2014 directing the petitioners to obtain .No Objection Certifrcate' from the District Collector/Revenue Divisional Officer as per Andhra Pradesh Agricultural Land (Conversion for Non-Agricultural Purposes) Act, 2006, notified vide G.O.Ms.No.1537, M.A. dated 19.10.2006, as illegal arbitrary and contrary to Law.

2. Heard Ms.B.Madhavi, learned counsel representing Sri K.Laxmaiah, learned counsel for the petitioners on record and Sri V.Narasimha Goud, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No. 1 (HMDA).

3. When the matter is taken up for hearing, learned Standing

Counsel appearing for respondent No.1 represented that the issue involved in the writ petition is squarely covered by the orders passed by the Division Bench of this Court in K.Satganand.a ) ) I 2 Patnaik and others o. Hgderabad urban Deoelopment Authoritgt wherein the Division Bench of this Cour . heid thaU "As we haue confinned the common order datecl :8.04.2010' we are inclined to dispose of utit petitions as /ollou s: (o) It shall be competent for the urban Deuelopmer't Authoities or the Local Authoities, as the case mag be. I I insist ort submission of clearance/ permi.ssion under the 2(.) t6 Act as o condition precedent for releo.sing of layouts, and (b) the lond has been put to non-agricultural use before the 2006 Act came into force, such clearance/ permi's-s i 'n shall not insisted. (c) Conuersion of land into Non agicultural us z tLnder the proubions of Act 3 of 2006 is necessary euen i,' the land is couered by master Plan ond sanction of lcttr' ut by the Deuelopment Authoity under the prouisions of Act of 1975.'

4. Learned Standing Counsel for responden No' 1 rvould submit that in view of the aforesaid order passed ry the Division Bench of this Court, the petitioners have to submit NALA certificate ald therefore, the writ petition is liable tc be disposed of - this Court in in terms of order passed by the Division Bench : K. Satgananda Po,tnqik (cited supra).

5. Learned Counsel for petitioners did ni) dispute the submissions of learned Stalding Counsel that the < rder passed by the pivision Bench, squarely applies to the present ,r'rit petition. ) ' 2016(3) ALD 600 (DB) I = 3

6. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of in terms of directions issued by the Division Bench of this Court in K. Satganandrr Patno;ik (cited. supro,). There shall be no order as to costs Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// Sd/.B.REKHA RANI SISTANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To, Authority, Tarnaka, Secunderabad. . Development Department, Secretariat Hyderabad.

1. The Metropolitan Commissioner, Hyderabad Metropolitan Development 2. The 'Principal and Secretary, lvlunicipal Administration and Urban 3. One cc to Ms. LAXMAIAH KANCHANI, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CCs to GP FOR MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT ,High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad [OUT] 5. One CC to SRl. V. NI-ARASIMHA GOUD, SC FOR HMDAIOPUCI 6. Two CD Copies A- (Along with a annex copy of the order W.A.No. 7O2 of 2O1O and batch and flz We.No 8666 of 2008 ) BM SA HIGH COURT DATED:1 510912025 ORDER WP.No.12101 of 2015 T :S) I ,: ,l)\ ,f-: ( t DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS (\ ('6 ')\ '(' ot\ I HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE OILIP B, BHOSALE ANO HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE S.V.BHATT W.4.Nos.702t2010.741n010.742m10.7$m1O.747mfi.754t2O1O.757IZO1O. tlBnO1O. 1030/2010. 1M7t2010, 106st?o10. TIt2011- 327tm11. 443tm11. 133712012. 533t2015. 296/2012. W.P.NoS.8666/2{}OA. 15278/2008. .16497/2mA. 17092/2q)8_ .l8st2y2'(x)A. 18727t2W. 1B796t2ffi. 24687mA- 267m20f€. Wp 2791A!2@. 2q34z2c/)€. g72t2mg. r26o/axE. 3a$/2009. 642712009. A42l2(x)9. 6564/an. 7659/2009. &t392009. 936a/2{89. 9rto'l/20,00. 9!,0820q). 18151/2009. 1846,1/I,09.93iy20lo_ 25,t61/2010.25469/20lO. 3cr9,20't0. 3253112010. 2913/201 t. 330a/2011. 66432011. 6730/2011. 695A/m11. 747212011. . 2,]g07n0fi. 7476m11. al0E.n01l. 9429t2011. 9915t2ofi- 20341t2011. 2l3€snlf 229r3t2011.24651n011,2479At2011.2N42J2011.257&5tm11.277651mfi.2795/i,n0fi, 1 1)n 7Dn1.t 'tA'ravDn11 ,'ratui, anAhn<a 12 2151m12- fi75t2o12. fi76tm12. 5t2nO1L fi31m12. 11345t2012. 17457tfr12. 1ffi9n012. 2107012012 341G9l201Z 35B41nO12- 35[f,7m12. *A'Sml?- fipo5m12 fi939t2012. 359521m12. 37579t2012- r?sBnml2. 39/gc/,12012. 1377nO13. 20531z.J13. 3293/2013.3521/2013. r09t2013.605!i20t3.5274i2013.5fl17/m13.6&50/20t3.8871/2013. 89i16/2013. 9336/2013. 982&2013. 99'7,20t3. 10297/2013. 10637i2013. tO7(t4/2013. 10705/2013. 10894/2013. 1 1855/2013. 13371201 3. 13868/2013. I 3A89/m13. 1igg7lm13. t546/,nA13. l59f}2n013. 172|d,.t2013. 1741612013. 17626/m1X- 177A9t2013. fi1&Am13. 20,,4€,nO13. 206.95t201t. 21439m13- 218,,1tm13. Dflt813. 29;r7t20fi. ,zgm)tmfi. 23,12312013.23440m13 2'a0€,312013. 31533tm13. 105t2014. fiA/2014- 9A51m14, 1of/l,tm14. tu5m14. 1At2O14. t39am14. fr74t2014- *fit2014. 42€1m14. 5321t414. 56551?J14. 6117t2014. 7540m14. 7903/2014. 8€,rgm14. 9ir7U.2014. 93fot2014. 9d,53t2014. 9/ls42afi . 97r],/2014. 9826/2014. 106912014. 11157t2014- 112fF,t2014. 1232At2014. 12384,12014. 4 15473t2O14. 15479t2O14. 1ffitm1!. 15714tN14- 1ffi73t2O14. 17OOA2Ofi. 1721A2014. 17515tm14. 175A82014. fi2591z,14- 188fi2o14. 19/t61m14. 19163J2014. 19171m14. 19241nO14. 194nrm14. 2't6&t2014. 21&3,Jtb14. 2494tn14- 2559nOU. 2i29t2014. 24tgzb14- 24327m14. 24gzolzo14- 1igr2ol4. 2sct4tzo14. 2sw6mt4. 264721fr14. 24221 I 211 4. 2t23n$ 4. 2831 21201 4 - 287 64t Nl 4 - 2f,J!51 t 2O1 4. 29?22J 2O1 4. ?s'2€p,l 2O1 4. 'f1qDi1a ln71Ar,{ll 4 34[fE,n014. 35191m14. 95525nU4- 3555512014. 4g.9mm14. 11159/N14. 4mtm15. 4rum15. a76tm15. 197612015. 19/i2f2015. 2tt3t2015- 22J7t2015. 3035t2015. 3.4-1glm15. 3765/2015- 38572015. 4553/2015. 5154/2015. 5234/2015_ 5974/m15. m36/2015. 65m/2015. 6590/201 5. 6959/ml 5. 7239/201 5. Zlgzmr 5. Ti(}rml 5. 7866/201 5. A523iZOt S. 859120 rS. 8746/m15.8766/20'15.887512015.8898/2015.9080/415.9455/2015.9492m15.989/2015- 9722nO15. 10710nO15. 1119ftn0t5. 11t93t2015- 11219tm15. 11452m15. .12451tm15. 12764/m15.,r2851/2015. 12941/2015. 133832015. 13788/2015. 13859i20.t5. 14690/2015. 15610/20'15. 15615m15. 16dr1/2015. 18279/2015. 18624/2015 and zl 11<t<,9o1d .taF4aoali ,|aaEAtr a^ 1.rao1 lr la lEl}A'rt lr-t7, a<,rcet.n COMMON OROEn: (Pe. Hon de sn Justice s v Bhalt) Through this common order, we propose to dispose of writ appeals^,vrit petitions involving common questions of law. The balch of writ appeals, is directed against lhe common order dated 28_04.2010 in W.P.No.26688 of 2007 and the batch. By the order dated 28.04.20'10, the learned Single Judge disposed ot ttle batch ol the writ petitions by holding as lollows: " a) lt shall be competenl for lhe Urban Development Aulhorilies, or the Local Authorities, as lhe case may be, to insist on submission of clearance/permission under the 2006 Act as a cond(ion precedent lor releasing ol layouls; and b) the land has been pul to non_agricullural use belore the m06 Act carne tnto force, such clearance/permission shall not be insisted." The 2006 Act relerrcd lo is lhe Andhra Pradesh Agricultural (Conversion for Ncl Agflcultural Purposes) Act 2006, which shall tle hereinafter called and rele(ed to 'r short "Acl 3 ot2006" The prayers in the batch ol writ petitions seek declaration that the petition len lr which are part o[ a zonal development plan under lhe Andhra Pradesh Urban Are ll (DeveloPrnent) Act 1975 (for short "Ac1 1 of 1975") are oulsrde lhe purview ot Act 3 ol 2006 or hat the letlr issued by the Urban Development Authoity calling upon the petitroners lo obtain'l ( Ob,ect on Certillcate / Clearance under Act 3 ot 2006 lor considenng layout applicatic' as illegal. withoul iuflsdrct on and unconstlutional In the instanl balch lhe lollowing queslions arise lor consideralion under the "( 3 ol 2006 and the Ac( 1 ol 1975' r. What s lhe scope and ambit ol Act 3 ol 2006 and Act I ol 1975, in particular' h scope. purposc and eflect of paymenl of conversion Tax and Developm v Charges undcr lhcse Acls? Whether lhe UrDan Development Aulhorily for consideraton and sanction ot lay ,l plans subrrrlleo by a developer ol a property covered by Developmenl Plan {:l msrst upon subrnrsson ol No Objeclaon Ceni{icate/Clearanca kom tho Rever ,r DMisional OflLccr undet Act 3 ot 2006 lor processing an application liH lor lay rt approval? Whelher rt rs rrecessary to gelland converled into Non Agricultural use once rt rs covered by Developmenl Plan and ailer the sanction of layout by lxe Urban Developmenl Authority? Heard Mr. M- V. Durqa Prasad. Mr. P. Prabhakar Rao' l\.4r-Ajay Reddy, learned counsel, Mr. V Venkataramana and Mr. B. Adinarayana Rao. learned senior counsel lor appellants/ petitioners and learned Advocates General lor the States ol Telangana and Andhra Pradesh For conventence. we reler 10 the averments ln Writ Appeal No-702 ol 2010 aris r' out ol W.P.N0.26688 ol 2oO7 and the re,erence Io these allegations is sufilcienl c uoderstandrng lhe circumslances under which the questions ol law arlses for decisi' r The learned counsel apocaring lor all the parties advanced arguments on lhe quesl c I kamed above. The case of appellaols ln Writ Appeal No. 702 ol 2010 is that the appellants are t r( absolule owners and possessors ol the land in Survey No 242lPan, 244lPai a\t 245/Part olBahadurpall Village. Khuthbullahpur Mandal. Ranga Reddy Districl T rr appetlants claim righl and irlle to the sard property through [egistered sale deeds dalrr

11.03.2005, 28.05.2005, 03.06.2005, 04.06.2005 and 27.12.2005. The appe anrs under Seclion 12 of Act 1 ot 1975, applied to the Hyderabad Urban Oevelopment Authority/isr respondentfor cinversion ol land use under the zonal development plan. The competent authority through Memo bearing No. 26g9zt MA dated 04.05.2006 issued drafl notificatlon callng ,o. objections againsl prcposed change ol use. The requesl of appellants for change of land use was accepted through G.O.Ms.No 287, Munrcipal Admintstration and tJrban Devetopment (1) Department dafed 30.05.2006. The appellants appried undersections i3 and 14 ofAct 1 of 'r975 ror sanction or rayout for the petttion land. The lsl respondent called upon the appeltants to pay developmenl charges ot Rs.44,10,582/-- The levy of development charges is under Secljons 27 and 29 ot Act I ol 1975. On 15.11.2007, the appeltants paid a sum ot Rs.44,lO,58Z- rowards development charges as demanded by lhe Urban Development Authonty. The 1si respondent/Urban Devetopmenl Aulhority through Letter No.t I T66A4pzplannrng/ H/2006 dated 11.11.2007 caled upon he appeflants to produce ,No Certificate (NOC) from the Dislrict Collector evidencing conversion ol subiect land into non-agricullural purpose lo process the pending application lor approval of layout. The appellants challenge the inslant letter on various factual and legal grounds. Objection Brielly stated. the case ot 1st respondent, as reltected in the counter aflidavrt, is that as an authority under Acl 1 of 1975, the lsl respondent is concemed with the development of an area covered by master plan/zona, development plan as per the purpose specified therein. The 1sl respondent admits receipt of Rs.44,10,582/- towards development charges. As far as the averments in letter dated l1 11.2007, the 1sr respondent reprres that the condrtion to obtain Noc from the authority under Act 3 0l 2006 rs insisted upon as per the directives issued by the Govern-menl of Andhra Pradesh. The 1sl respondent alleges that Acl t of 1975 cannot be understood as overridrng Act 3 of 2006. tt ts stated that an owner intending lo develop the land into any ol the purposes slated under the notified master plan is required to fo ow he prescriptons of Act 3 ol 2006 and Act 1 ol 1975. In oher words, it is the case ol jst respondent that the amount paid under Act I ot 1975 is towards development charges and under Act 3 of 2006 one time tax is payable and the tax is tmposed by R_D.O for conversron of agriculluaal land lor non agricullural purposes. Therefore, according to 1sl respondent Acts 1 of 1975 and 3 of 2006 operate in different spheres and the notfrcalions or conversion of land for developmenl purf,ose cannot be equated as conversron of agricultural land lor non-agricultural purpose under Act 3 of 2006. The 1sr respondent prays for dismissat ol writ petition. The 2d respondent in lherr counter affidavit states that the provrsions ol Act 3 ol l i 2006 are applicable and bindrng on a person intending to convert agricultural land k non-agricu tural puPose in spite of any orde/notillcation under Act 1 ol 1975' ll is h case ol 2d respondent that the payment oldevelopment lee under Act 1ol 1975 rsto an aulhorily conslrtuted underAcl 1ol 1975 and thrs levy ls in the nat I ol tee co lected lowards developmenl chalges by the specilied authority lh development charges are payable in terms of applicable regulations made under A(t ol 1975 and the payment does not exonerate lhe appellants from the legal obligatior ( conversion tax under Acl 3 ol 2006. The 2d responden! Iu(her states thal under lhe Andhra Pradesh Non agriculh ri Land Assessmenl Act, 1963 (lor shorl 'Act 14 ol 1963'), the Government was authori: e lo levy non-agricultural land tax upon conversion of agacultural land into non'agricultural lar c Under Acl l4 of 1963, the aulhonties were authorrzed to collecl non'agricultural land z kom a person who puts agricultural land lor non agacultural use or purpose The po\ ( or authonty under Act 1,1 of 1963 to impose Non Ag cultural Land Assessmenl (NA Tax on land actually used lor non_agricultural pu[pose and the land to be used for n')l agflcullura purpose was challenged in a batch of writ petitions and the principle v ' final y decrded by the Supreme Cou,l in Fede.ation of A.P' Chambers of Commetc 'I and lndustry and olhers vs. State ol A.P.o For the purpose ol examining i n interprctinq Act 3 ol 2006. in our view the law declared by the Supreme courl r Federation of A.P. Chambers case is useful and relevant porlion of ludgment re' c thus. "7. ll is lrlle law that a taxing slatule has to be slrrclly construed and nolhrng can bc read nto it ln the classic passage irom Cape Brandy Syndicate, whrch was noticed in lhe ludgmenl under appeal, rl was sa d: "ln a taj(ing Act one has lo look rnerely at what is clearly sard There is no room lor any rnlendmenl. There is no equity about a lax There is no presumplon as lo a tax. Nolh ng rs lo be read in, oothing is to be imd€d One can look farrly al the language used.' This vlew has been reiterated by lhis Courl time and again Thus, in The Slate ot Eombay v Automobile and Agricultural lnduslries Corporation Bombay t961 12 S T.C. 122. lhrs Coun sad: But lhe coLrds in interpreling a taxrng slatute will not be jusliled in adding words lhereto so as lo make out some presumed objecl ol the Legislature . ll the Legislature has larled to clarily its meaning by the use ol appropriate language, lhe benelit thereot must go lo the tarpayer. lt is settled law lhat rn case ol doubl, lhat rnterpretalion o{ a taxing statule which is beneficral lo lhe taxpayer must be adopled.

8. On behaif ol the respondent_State, learned Counseldrew our attention to the judgmenl ol lhis Courl in The Conlroller of Estate Dutv Gu arat v Shri Kaotilal Tnkam al . That iudgmenl also is lo the same eliecl and does not avail lhe respondents. lt sadl The sweep ol lhe Sectrons which will be presently set oul must, therelore be rnlormed by the language aclually used by lhe legislature. Ol course, It the words cannot apply to any recondite species of property, courts cannot supply new logios or invenl unnafural sense to words to luffil the Unexpressed ar)d unslated tvishes ol the legislature.

9. We are in no doubt whalever, Iheretore, lhat rt ts only land which ls actually in use for an ioduslrial purpose as defined in the said Acl lhat can be assessed lo non'agricullural assessfient at the.ate specified for land used for iMuslrial purposes. The wider meaning given to the word 'used' in the judgment under challenge is untenable. Having regard to the lact that the sad Acl is a taj(ing slatule, no courl is iustilied in rmputrng to the legislalure an intention that il has nol clearv expressed in the language il has employed." ' The State Legrslature taking note ol the law declared by he Apex Courl rn Federation ol A.P. Chambers case and with a view to puttjng in place comprehensive legislation, repealed Acl 14 ol 1963 and enacted Act 3 ol 2006. Therelore, in this background, it is the case ol2d respondent that the payment under Act 3 ol2006 is one time payment of tax lor conversion of agricullural land,or non-agricultural purpose, instead ol levy and demand of NALA Tax lor every Fasili under Act 14 of 1963. The amounl levied and collected under Act 3 of 2005 is by its very nafure a tax levied by the State for conversion ol agricultural land for non-agricultural purpose and no parallel can be drawn with lhe development charges paid to development authority under Act 1 ot 1975 for institution of use or conversion ol use- According to respondent, Act 1 ol 1975 and Act 3 of 2006 adminisler dilferent situations and applications lt is further stated that the Slate Governmenl atter taking note of lack ol coordination between the drflerenl authorities who grant permtssions under Act 1 of 1975 lssued nole Nos.84(154/&ED-312007), 1371N&E-O3t2007) and (7351r'&E-D3/2007) dared 28.05.2007 to insisr upon production of NOC/Clearance trom R.D.O under Act 3 ot 2006. Whrle considering sanclion of layout approvals, tlhe instant note calls upon the Vice- Chairmen ol urban Developmenl Authorities to insist upon producton ol NOC from authority (RDO) under Act 3 of 2006. The respondents pray for dismissal of the wnt petitions The leamed counsel for appellants/petitioners contend thal Act 1 o, 1975 and Act 3 o12006 cover lhe same subjecl matter aod these Acts are ovedapping. Therelore, in applicalion of these enactments, the well established principles ol interpretation as laid down in ALLAHABAD BANK v. CANARA BANK[4, SURESH NANDA v. CBI3J. ASHOK MARKETING LIMITED V. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANKH and KSL & INDUSTRIES LIMITED V. ARIHANT THREADS LIMITEDE are to be applied and compliance wrlh the requirements under Act 1 of 1975, satisfies lhe requiremenl ol due conversion o, agricultural land lor any of the non'agriculfural purposes. The rnsistence upon clearance^Oc ,rom R-O.O is ullru vires and in supporl ol this proposilion, the appellants plac€ reliance onSUBASH KUMAR LOHADE VS 1l-: SPECIAL OFFICER, MUNICIPAL 'CORPORATTON OF HYDERASADEI- S contended thal the imporr ol both Ihe dcb is one and the same. The words'convers c and change of land use' used rn lhese enaclments are used in lhe same sense. The learned coJnsel further contend that the non obstanle clause in the spe I Ll enaclment vrz., Act 1 ol 1975 has orbrndrng effect on lhe provisions ol Act 3 ol 2005 rr i that'lhe operahon ol Act 1 ol 1 975 dcludes lirstly the operaton of provisions of Act I ,{ 2006 in a notified urban area and secondly the conversion tax under Acl 3 of 2 )l l amolnts lo double taxation- The learned counsel funher contend that even assun ir l withoul admittng that land convs6ron tax is payable, lhe scheme of Act 3 ol 2 )l l provides for ex post laclo paymenl ol conversron tax tor use of land lor non-agicl rll lr Ll purposes. Therefore, the Urban oevelopment Authorities cannot call upon appllcant; l obtain NOC from the Revenue Depanment. The condrtron precedent imposed by tl l L,rban Developmenl Authority for consrderatlon ol layoul approval application is arbrl a / and wllhout jurisdiction The learned counsel appearing forthe appellanls place slrn l reliance Lroon Seclion 2(e), (0 (o) and (p) Seclions 3, 6, 7 13, 27. 28 and 29 of Act I 1975 to contend thal the area covered 5y Acl 1 ol 1975 is comprehensively governed by Acl 1 ol 1975 and none else The appellants rely upon lhe regulalrons lssued by the Development Authority froftr I n -' to time under Act 1 of 1 975 to illustrale therr conlention that the fee paid under n ct I lgT5isinlactaconversiontee. ByvlrtueolissuanceofanotficationunderSecton' I Act 3 of 2006, the lands used lor such notlied purposes are exempted from Acl I I 2006 and there is no need to pay land conversion tax lo Govemment. The appellan'; r support ol lheir contention under Seclion 7 of Act 3 of 2006 rely upon the notrfi.a r( 1 issued by the l st respondent lor tnsttulton ol use or any development use under A(1 I 1975. ln other wo rds, the submission ol learned cou nsel for the appellants is that onr e r notitication under Acl I of 1975 is issued permiilinq change of land use, applicittor I Act 3 ol2006 is excluded to such riolilied land. It is finally contended lhat the NCC cannot be tnsisted upon from Revenue Depa(n c t and the requirement is w thout authofity and amounts lo arlcitrary exercise of powe I / the 1sl respondent. On the other hand, learned Advocales General appearing tor Urban 0eveloprre Aulhorities in respective StaES contend thal the challenge to impugned letlcl unfounded and that a reading of provisions of Act 1 of 1975 and/or Act 3 ol 2006 I appellanG is complelely e(oneous and liable lo be reiected in limioi. Accotdng lo the learBAdyocales General. imposition of conversion o1 lirr tax on land used for non aliilfEEl purpose should not be confused wrth er'l developmenl charges paid to Et adhodty or change of land use permined lhroLrg r notiftcation under Act 1 of 1975 whrch is ,or a drfferent purpose and has nothing to do with the payment of iand conversion ta( under Acl 3 of 2006. According to hem, the appellants are completely ignoring the legistative history of Act 14 ol 1963 which was repealed through Act 3 ol 2006 and the scope and ambit of re enactment uz., Act 3 ol 2006. The object and purposes of Act I of 1975 and/or Act 3 of 2006 are drslinct, operate in diflerent spheres and there is no overlapping of subject matter as contended by lhe appellants. Strong reliance on lhe statement ol objects and reasons, scope and levy under Act 14 of 1963 and Act 3 ol2006 has been placed to contend hat under Acl '14 ol 1963 NALA Tax $/as levied lor a Fasli (year) upon usage of any land lor non-agnculturat purpose. The Govemment was levying and demanding NALA lax ,or use ol the total extent of agricultural land lor non. agricultural pllrpose and however levy ot NALA Tax under Act 14 of 1903 on account ot ratio ol Federation ol A-P. Chambers,case was reslricted to the exact extent of land used by an occupier for non-agricultural purpose. The Government, wilh a view to addressing the basis ot adjudicalion rn Federation ol A.p. Chambers' case and also in the place of annual levy ol NALA Tax, enacted Act 3 of 2006 providing for imposition o, conversion lax for use of agricultural land {or non-agricultural purpose According to he respondenls, the tevy and demand of conversion tax under Act 3 ol 2006 is dilferent and drstinct hom devetopment charges paid under Section l4 read with Sections 27 to 29 of Act I o, 1975. According to the learned counset, the contention rarsed on Section 7 of Act 3 ot 2006 is mrsconceived and liable to be relected ln rmln,, for Sectron 7 deals with statutory exemption granled to a few classes of iands speclfied in lhe Section and grant further exemptron to a ctass ol lands lrom the application olAcf 3 o12006. Therelore, according to the counsel, the notilication. even if issued, under Act I of 1975 has no application to claim exemption lrom either paymentof conversion Tax or applicability of provisions of Act 3 ol2006 Further, if the basis of appellants. case namely that the Acts are covering the same Sublect and overlapping. is rejected and no exceplion for levy and demand ol conversron tax vis-e-vis development charges can be laken. The leamed Advocate Generat tor the State ol Telangana has relied upon decisions in Firm Ram Kdshna Ramnath Agarwal v. Secretary, Municipal Committee, Kamptee E, i,U".r"tn 8.o". ,. the Union ol lndiag, Kewal Krishan pu v. State ot Punlabg, Govind Saran Ganga Saran v. Commissioner ot Sales Tax@ and Municipat Councit, Kota, Raiasthan v. Dethi Ctolh & cene.al Ma s Co, Ltd., Delh#n. The tearned Advocates ceneral pray for djsmissat o, the appeals/pelitions. ln orderlo appreciate the contenlions raised by the partes r iil it would be necessary lo refer lo history' scope/object and salient leatures o{ Acls l ' { 1963. 3 ol2006 and 1 of 1975 The salient tealures are examined with the assistanc ) I basic aids ot interpretation ot slalutes and to determine whelher these enaclrnt r i operate in the same sphere or not' T aeDea of Act 14ofl s63 and eaactment of Act 3 0f 2005 As already noted, the levy ollax on ag culluralland lor non agncultural use was inlroduced through Act 14 ot 1963 The Tahsrldar under Section 3 olAct 14 ol 1963 was authorized to levy non-agr c rl J 1l land tax lor use of agricultural land lor non-agricultural purpose. As per Section 3 ol Act l 4 of l 963 NALAtaxwaslevel )l ditlerent purposes at the rates specilied in the schedule appended to lhe Acl I re assessment of tax is (or Fasli (yeao and NALA Tax was levied lor the use ot agricul L aj landlollesidential,corrmercialandindustrialpUrpose,aSthecasemaybe-Sect)14 olAcl 14 ol 1 963 empowered the Tahsildar to determine and demand NALA tax lo r I n agricultural use of agricullural land lnFederationofA.P.chambers'case,theApexCourlhaslaiddownlhepnlrclr{o| law that NALA tax can be levied only on the land actually used lor any of the purp I es specified in schedule ol Act l4 ol 1963, but not on entire and o\rned by an occupier The sequel of Federation ol A PChambers' case illustratively slated llra assessee who possesses an e(tent ol Ac'lO_OO for lunntng an induslry ls reqr'r" pay NALA Tax only for the exlent ol land actually used for non-aqricultural purposr Buildings, Factory ancillary facrl lies and not on vacant land held as adjuncl or ollre ! to the main purpose of establishmenl by the occupier' The principle of law laid do Federation of A'P.Chambers case was narrowed down the appllcatlon of A(l I ol 1963 in recovering NAtrA Tax Therelore' Act 14 ol 1963 was repealed through A' I i ol 2Oo6- The Statement ol Objects anci Reasdfls ot Act 3 of 2006 reads thus"

2., The Andhra Pradesh Non Agricultural Land Assessment Acl' 1963 prov rl s {or the levy of asses-smenl ol lands usd {or Non agricultural purg)ses' The'Ilon agrrculturat land" as dellned under Section 2(g) ol the a' I means Land other lhan the land used exclusivety lor the pur[rcsr) ] agculturebuldoesnotincludelhelandUsedexclusivelyfor(i)Catlleshc,i. (ll) hay ricks Secton 3 ol the Act' is the charging section according lo lhe a'e I and rates in&cated in the Schedule lherein The Schedule sets oul lhe ral i: of assessacent per Sqr Mrr- ol land used per Fasli year (a) tor induil' ' purpose;(b)1or cornmercial purpose; and (c) lor any other Non agric! lu ' purpose including residenlial purpose' vs R D O' Nandyar ' )r others i1993 (2) ALI 321 rnlerpreled the word "used recurring in Seclor and lhe S.hedlle ol the sald Act means nol only aclually used bul 2; means aly tand meant lo be used or set apart from berng used On appeal the Apex Court in the Federaton of A'P Chamber ( Comme{oe and lndustry and olhers vs slate ol A'P ' IC A No'103!'i'0 ( The High Court o{ A'P rn S'V Cements Ltd ' I I I I on 04.08.2000 heh that it is only the tand which rs actua y rn use lor an iodustrial purpose as defined in the Acl that can be assessed lo non_ agricultural assessmed at th€ rate specified for tand used for lnduskial purposes- ll lhe Supreme Court orders are implemented by charging NALA, lhe demand will go down to 75% ot the totaldemand. The Govemmenl have evolved New lnduskiat poUcy and orders were issued exempling ail lMustnal units kom levy ol NALA wilh eflect from 01-04 20001o 31 3-2005. Accordingly, Government have decrded lo abotish NALA by repealing The Andhra Pradesh Non Agricutturat Land Assessment Act, 1963 in ils present form and to introduce tevy ln lumpsum at the rate ot 10% (Ten percent) ol the basic value ol the land tn arrears as may be fixed by lhe Government,rom llme lo time as one lame measure al lhe time ol conversion by undertaking a spec,iic legislalion This Billseeks to givo ellect to lhe above decislon., The statement ol objects and reasons cteady shows lhat the enachent of Act 3 ol 2006 is to regulate the conversion of agricultural land to non-agricultural purposes for matlers connected therewith or incidental lhereto The preambie ol Act 3 ot 2006 provides for repealing Act 14 ot 1963. The Hon ble Supreme Court rn Stale of Gularat v. Mitzapur Moti Kureshi Kassab Jamat and others@ laid down the interpretalive utility of statement ol objects and reasons in construing a statute. The relevant porlion reads thus: 'Reference to lhe Statement ol Obiecls aM Reasons is permissjble for understanding the background, anlecedent stale of allairs in retation to the statule, and the evil which the statute has soughl lo remedy. The.lacls slated in the preambie and the Statement of Objects and Reasons appended to any legislalion are evidence of the legslalive ludgment_ They indtcale lhe thoughl process of the elected representatives of lhe peopte and their cognzance of the prevalent state ot afrairs, rmpelting them to enacl the law_" A stahrte is lhe highest constitutonaj lormulatron ol law_ The means by which the Supreme Legislature, after lullest detiberations, expresses its final will- A clear distjnction exists between a repeat simipticiler and a repeal aEd re- enaclment by the legislature. Likewise, the legat position as lo where lhere is a repeal ol an enaclmenl and simultaneous re enactmenl and whether the re-enacted law manifests an intention incompatible with or contrary to the provistons o, the repealed provsions o,lhe re-enacted enactment is examined. Therefore, lhis Court whtle interpreting the scope and ambit etc_, ol Act 3 of 2006 must bear in mind the law subsistng when Act 3 of 2006 has come into operatjon. lt is desirable anct imperative lo go through the then existing legislation, i, any, and obtain its clear undershnding vis-a,us Acl 3 ot 2006 and he necessity for hesh declaration of law by the Slate Legislature. Thus viewed, Act 14 of 1963 has been in force kom 1963 till 2006. Uncter Secton 3 ol 14 ot 1963, NALA tax was paid for non agricultural use of agricutturat land. The Apex Court in Federation ol A.P Chambe.s's case has restricted the levy and demand ot NALA tax only to the aclual use ol agnculfural land for non agflcullural purpose by an assessee L,nder the Act l I I i iI and nol on the total agrcultural land held by an occupier tor non-agricullural pu[ ) ] Therelore. lhe State Legislature with a view lo removing lhe difficulty caused b. re decision in Federation of A.P.Chambers, repealed Act 14 ol 1963 and enacled ,( 3 o12006. ll is not he case ol appellanls that between I964 and 2006 NALA tar wa i ot levied by the Tahasildar for the u rban propenies notified under Acl 10f1975 The e/, of non-agricultural land assessmenl lax, however, was imposed from 1964 tll 2002 it )3 and development charges were recovered as and when applicalion under Section 14 ol Acl 1 ol 1975 was made for grant of permission to lhe Urban Develop I nt Authonty The preamble and the short tjtle of the Acl cleady suggest thal Act 3 ol 201 ( rs repealing Acl 14 o, 1963 and the Act 3 o{ 2006 is inlended to regulale lhe conversr, r of agricLdbjral lahd to non.agri.ultural purposes. Act 3 of 2006 regulales conversrcn cl agricultural land lor non-agriculfural purposes and levy ol tax lor such conversion of ; id rs provided lor u nder Act 3 ol 2006. Section 2(a) ol Acl3 o12006 defines agnc!ltJrr rs rarsrng any crop or garden produce; or orchards or paslures or hayricks and Sectron 2 ) defines agricullural land as land used lor agriculture. Under Section 2(c), lhe !( o conversion means change of land use from agricultural to non-agricullura pu.po.€ ;- Non'agricultural land means - land other than the ag(cultural land Section 3 imp: s rs restriclion on conversion of agricultural land to non-agricullural purpose without i)r )r permission of the competent authority. The procedure lor obtaining permission is covered by Section 4, and the Act author z ,s granl of regulation ol conversion of land and one time levy and collection o- ( r. agricultural land tax. From the scheme ot the Act, it is eudenl that penalty rs provroe i )r default in payment ol NALA tax and collectron ol land conversion tax wrlh tine at 50 . )l NALA lax. Every owner or occupier of agdcullure land is under obligation l. c y conversion lax at the rate ol9% for use ol agricullural land for non-agricullural purpc. e The scheme ol Act 3 ol 2006 firstly is a one time rmposrton ol lax, while reguiatnq t e convcrsion of agricultuial land to non-agricultural purposes. The tax is payable to the Govemment and the object and rnlendmenl ol Act 3 ol 2l 6 thus rs regulation of land conversion and imposrlion ol tax lor such land conversion Thc leamed counsel appearing for the appellaots contend that with lhe issuar e ol a nolilication under Section 12 of Act 1 of 1975 eremption under Section 7 )l Act 3 of 2006 is available lo lhe notified lands under Acl 1 of 1975. and no 1 I conversion Iax need be paid under Act 3 of 2006. ln other words, il is contended that with the issuance of a notilicalion by lhe Govemmenl lor chang ) f development use, there is automatic conversion of agflcullLrral land ,or non agdcu I I use and lhereby lhe applicability ol Act 3 of 2006 is exempted- ln support cl I i submrsslon, some or lhe appellants rely upon Iand use notilicalion issued under Sec L( 'l 7 ol Act 1 of 1975 or partcular change ol land use permined through indivi(! I nolrtcations tssued under Section 12 olAct 1 ol 1975. Accordtng to the learned counsel fo. appellants, the preparation and finalization of master plan and zonal development plan under Acl 1 of t975 or issuance ot a notificafion under Seclion i 2 of Act 1 oI 1975, by legal ficlion deemed chango of land use is occasioned and again the levy of tax for conversion of land use is unavarlable. The submisston does nol stand to the scrutiny of literal inlerpretation of Section 7 ot Act 3 ot 2006. Section 7 ol Act 3of2006readasJo ows: Act nor io appty to certatn tands: Nolhng in lhrs Acl shafl apply to (a) Lands owned by lhe Stare Govemmenr : (b) Lands owned by a tocat aurhonly and used ror a.y communar puDoses so rong as ihe la't rs not used lo.commerciat purposes , (c) Lands Lrsed for retiEous or charirable pu4Fses i .(O),tanOs used by oMe, Ior househotd induslies r.vo v,ng rrad t onat occupation. rEl excsfngnne acre i (e) Lands used ror such orher gjposes as may bc notrrrcd by tnc Govermenr kom . rr) Lands used ror Aquacutture, Dary ano poulrry lr Section 2 (d) (xi)defines notjfication thus rr) Nolil,calron means a nolilicatro. pubtrshed,r lhe A.Chra pradesh Gezelie. and lhe word 'Notfred' shatr be consUued accordingiy The literal construclion olsection 7 ol Acl3 of 2006 exempls tands owned by he Stale Government; the local authority; jands used Ior communal purposes and so long as the lands are not used lor commercial purposes; land used for religtous or chantable purposes; land used by owner ol household industry tnvolving lradilional occupatjon not exceeding one acre_ A few inbuilt or statutory exemptions are provided in the Section dealing with exemption. Through clause (e) of Section 7, power ts confered on lfle Governmenl to exclude application ol Act 3 ol 2006 for tands used for such other purposes, as may be notilied by the Government lrom time to trme. Section 7 (e) of Act 3 ol2006 confers power on the Govemment to consider issuance of a notificalion unc,er Section 7 of Act3 of2006, inclUding a category of agncuttural land from operation ofAct 3 ol 2006. Stated in simple expression, the Governmenl may under Sectron 7 ot Act 3 ot 2006 issue a notilication exempting a category or ctass ot lands ,rom the apptication ot Act 3 of 2006. ln other words, the masler plan o/ zonat devetopment plan,4ndividual change of user notjlicalions issued under Act 1 ol 1975, wilt not exempl the applicability ol Act 3 ot 2006. Therefore, the notification even, il any, issued under Act 1 ot 1g75, cannot be either contended or by nsqs553ry implication underslood as excluding application of Act 3 ol 2006. For the above reasons, the contention urged uncter by relying on Sectjon 7 (e)of Act 3 ol2006 is withoul meril and is accordingly rejected. Acl 1975 (Act 1 of 1975): The learned counsel for appellants by placing relance upon lhe scheme ol \ t I of 1 975 contends that llrs y the comprehensive developmenl in a notilied area undr r \ct 1 of 1975 is taken care by Act 1 of 1975 and with lhe issuance of notification unde' ris Act. the change ol user is effecled and no further conversion ol agricullure land cz. ce enusagcd or payment of land conversion tax would arise On the conlrary, the le. r ed Advocales General appearing for respondents contend lhat these two enactmenls r ve drstrnct purposes and that levy of land conversion lax underAcl 3ot2006isbywt ol lax al lhe time of conversion ol agriculture land for non-agriculure puposes and ler of development lee under Act 1 ol 1 975 is lor development use ol notilied land, partlcL I iy al the I me o( development of property in the notified area. The development fee is p 1id lo the Urban Development Authorily, which is vesled with Ihe responsibilrty of o\e all development ol urban area. We propose to examine the salrent realures ol Act 1 of I /5 and answer these issues The preamble of Act'1 of 1975 states Ihat Acl 1 ol 1975 is enacled to pro\ict cr lhc developmenl of urban areas rn the State ol Andhra Pradesh according to plar : rd lor matlers ancil ary thereto. From the preamble, il rs eviden( that Act 1 ot 19-a ls inlended to provide for development of nolified urban areas according to lhe master c ln and lor maders ancrllary thereto- We proceed to interpret the relevanl provislons ol Acl 1 of 1975 by read n( re language of statute as it is. The words employed in the stalute are given natura ; ld ordrnary meaning and that by harmoniously construing all the important seclions o re Act. lhe scheme of the Acl is determined. S€clion 2 (e): 'developrneot' vrith lls gramrnatical varlalions rneans the car rying oul o, all or any ot the works contemplated in a masler plan or zona developrnenl plan referied to in lhis Acl, and ihe carrying ot,l of building. enqineering, mining or other operalions in. ont over or under land. or lhe making o, any nBterial change in any buihing or land and includes redeveloprnent: Provrded that lor the putposes o{ lhis Act, lhe follos/ing oprations or uses ol land shall not be deenred to involve developmenl ot the land that is to sey- The carrying oul ol any tempoiary works for the mainlenance. improyemer or othel alteralion ol any building, being works which do nol malerially aflect the external appearance ol the building; The carrying out by a local authorlty of any lomporary works required lor lhe mainleflance or improvemenl of a road, or works caarled out on land wirhin the boundaries ol the road; The carrying out by a local aulhority or statulo.y undertaking of any ternporary works for lhe purpose of lnspecllng, repairing or renewing any sewersj mains, pipes, cables or other apparatus, including the breaking op€n ol any street or other land for that purpose; The use ot any building or olher land within the cartilage purpos€ incidenlal to lhe eoioymenl oI the dwelling house as such; and The use of any land lor the purpose ol agriculture. gardenlng or forestry(including atlorestation) and lhe use lor any pu.pos€ specilied in lhis clause ol any building oc-cupied together with land so used' (i) (i, (il, (iv) (v) Seclion 2 (e) defines development as cafiying out all or any works contemplated in (l) master plan, (ll) zonal development plan refened in Act 1 of 197S and development means carrying oul building, engineering, mining or other operations in, on, over or under land. Development means making any material change in any building or tand and reJevelopmenl Through proviso, the following acts are not trealed as development lor the purposes ot the Acl . a) Temporary works which do not materially affecl lhe appearance of the building b) Canying out the works within the road alignment. c) Repairs lo sewers and drains elc. d) Any ancillary work carried out for use of any building or cartilage. e) Use of land for agriculture, gardening or forestry purposes. The definition of the word ,development, on the one hand is comprehensive and on the other, a few aclivities though satisfy the meaning of development, still are excluded from the meaning of development. Such exctusion is provided to avoict undue hardship in carrying out a few activities in a notified area_ Seclion 2flt:'developnEot area, nteans any urban area or group ot urban areas declard to be a developr€nt area under sub-section (1) of Sectron t3 Section 2 (0 defines developmenl area as urban area or qroup of urban areas declared under Sectron 13(1)ofAct 1 of.t975. Developrnent area, therelore, consrsts ot any urban area or group of urban aaeas declared to be a development aaea under sub-section (1) of Section 13. Sectioo 2(o):'urban area rEans:- (D (iD the area comprised wjthih the iu.isdictjon ol the M{rniclpal Corporation o, Hyderab€d or ol any tlunicipality constituted under the Andhra pradesh Municipalities Act, 1965 and also ahy such area in lhe vicihity as lhe Governrnent mry, having regard to the exlent of, and the scople for, the urbanizallon ol that area or other relevanl considerations, speairy in this betull, by notification; and sllch other area as lhe Governmeot may. by notilic€lion. declare to be an urban area, which in the opinion o{ the Government. is tikely to be utbdnle€d. Section 2 (o) covers Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad or any area covered by any municipality clnstituted under the Andhra pradesh l unicipalilies Act, 1965 together with such area in the vicinity of the Municipal Corporation or municipality, as the case may be, which has the potential for urbanization. The Government by issuing notificalion declare any area as urban area which has the poteotial of urbanization Seclion 2 (p): 'zone rneans any one of the divisions into which lhe development area may be divided tor the purposes of development under this Act' Seclion 2 (p) means zones as one ol the divisions ol development area divided ior the purpose of development under this Act The divisions of zones are - residenla commercial. industnal etc. Seg!g!-.lO: Civic surveY ol and Master Plan for developftent area:'(l) The Aulhority shall, as soon as may be, cariy oul a civic survey of and prepare a Master Plan {or the development area con@rned. (2) The Master Plan shall' (a) deline the va.ious zones into which the development area may b€ divided tor the purposes ot development and indicate lhe manner in Y/hich the land in e.ech zorie is FoPosed to be used (eithor afler carrying out developrhont thereon or otherwise) and the stages by which any auch developlrlent shall be carried outi and (b) serve as s basic patlern ol frarne-lvork within which the zonal development p,aris ol lhe various zones may be paepared. (3) The Master Plan may provide lor any othor rnatter which is necessary for the proper cleveloprnefll ol lhe develoF leot area. Seclion 7: Zonal doveloprnent plans:. (l) Simultaneously with lhe preparalion of Master Plan or as soon as may be lhereafte. the Authorily shall procee.l wilh the preparallon oI zonal development plan for each ol the zones inlo which the developftent area may b€ divided. {2) A zonal clevelopment Plan may,- (a) coniain a sile plao ard land use plan ,or lhe developmenl ol the zone and show the approximate locations and extenls ol land uses proposed in the zones Ior such pllrposes as roads. housing, schools. lecreatioh. hosPilals, industry, buslness. markets, publlc works and utilltles. public buildlngs, public and privale open spaccs and other categories of public and private LJSES: (b) speclfy lhe slandards ol population densily ahd building densily: I show avery area in the zone which may, in tf|e opinion oI lhe Authority, be aequired or declareC for development oa redeveloprnent; and (d) in particular, contain provisions regarding all or any ot the rollowing mallerg. namely- (i) Ihe division of any sito inlo plots for tho erection ot buildings: (ii) the allotmedl or reservation ol laods tor roads. open spaces, gardens, recreation grounds- schools. markels and other public purposesi Section 6 oblrgates conduct ol civil survey and preparation of masler plan I r development area i.e- urban area or group of urban areas declared under Seclion 1lr( ) olAcl l ol 1975. Thezonal developmentarea takes care of various developmenl o lr i envisaged in master plan. Section 13: Declaration ol development areas and development ol land rn those and olher areas:- (1) As soon as may be ahe. the comrnencement ot lhis Acl, whero Government conslder il necessaty to do 30 lor purposes ot proper development ol any urban area or gtoup ot u.ban areas in this State lhey may' by notification. declare such urban area ol grouP of urban areas to tre a development area for lhe purposes ol lhis Acl. (2) The Goverorhenl may, by notilication and in accordance with such rules as may be made in thrs tlehalf- (a) erclude kom a developmenl area any atea comprised therein; or (b) include in developnrent a.ea any other area. (3) Save as olherwise provided in this Act, the Authority shall not undertake or carry oul any developrnent of land in any area which is not a developmenl area- (4) Atter the commencement ot this Act, no developrnenl of land wtthin the developmenl area shall be underlaken or qraied out by any person or body includlng any departrnenl of the covernment, unless permlssion for such development has been oblained ln writing |roln the Authority in accordance wilh the provisions of this Act. (5) After the cornlnq inlo operalion ot any of the plans in any area $iithin the development area, no d€veloprneot shall be undertaken or carrhd out in that aaea unless such developrnent ls also in accordance wilh such plans. (6) Notwilhstanding anylhing in any other law or th€ provislons contained in sub-sections (4) and (5), deve{oprient of any land undertaken in accordance wilh any law by any person or body locluding any departrnenl of the Goveroment or any local aulhority belore the commenoement of thls Act, al.y be compleled without compliance with the requirements ot those sub. sectionS. Provided that such development ol land shall be compleled $/ithln ono year from lhe date of commencefi,ent of this Act; untess the Au(horlty for good and sufllcienl re:$lons, od.rlds the sai, period of one year Ior such ,urther period as it deems fit. (7) After the commenoement ol this Act, no developrient ol land shall be undo.laken or carrled oul by any person or body including any depa.lment ol lhe Gove{nraenl in such Erea adjoinlng to or in the vicinity o[ the developmenl area, as may be notilied by the Governmeot unless approval of or sanction for such development has been oblained in writing trom the tocal authority conccrned, ih accordance with lhe provisions ol relevartt law relaling thereto, including th€ law relaling to town planning for the lime being in force and the rules and regulations nrade thereunder Provided that the local authorlty concerned may, in consultation with th€ Aulho.ity, lrante or suitably Drnend its regula{ions in lheir application lo such area adloining lo or in lhe vicinlty ol the development area- 8Xa) Where any pad ot the area adioiring to or in the vicinily of the development area, as noliried under sub-section (7). is in {he process of rapid development or is likely to develop in the near future, lhe local authority concerned shall! ehher on the direction o, the Government or on the advice ol the Aulhority, ptepare in consultation with the Authority. town planning scheme under the law rdaling lo Town Planning, for lhe tirne being in force, and publish the schernes as required under that law and submit them lo the Governftent lor 35nclion. (b) Any development in lhe area covered by such town planning schemes shall be in accordance with the provisions of lhe schemes as sanclioned by the Governmenl. @ Where in tegard to the matters specified in sub-section(7) and o, this sub- section thefe ls a dlfference ol opinlon behfleen lhe local authorlty concerned and lhe Autho.ity, the matler shall be reterred to lhe Government, whose clecision thereon shall be final. (9) ln lhis section, and in Seclions 14, 16 and 41 the expression Department ol lhe Government' rEans any deparlment, organization or public undertaking ol lhe Sl6te Government or of lhe Central Government. With the commencement of Act 1 of 1975, the Government considers necessary for proper development of any urban area or group of urban areas in the State, declares such urban area or group of urban areas to be a development area lor the purpose ol this Act and declaration ol u.ban area to be a development area lorthe purpose ofttris Act. The Section mandates thal development shall be strictly in accordance with the development notified under the Act A person conslructing a building or developing land in a development area applies to lhe authority lor permission to construct a buildlnqor developland in accordance with lhe development plan Section 14: Applic€tlon for permlssion:_ (1) Every pcrson or body including a Department ol ftdcbirriilrnenl desiring to obtain the pe.mission relerted to in Section '13 .h1l IEF_31 applicalion in writing to lhe Authority in such lorm and conlaining such parliclrlars in respect ot the development to which the application relates as may bs determlned by regulatioos. (2) Every application under su$secrion (1) shall be accompanied by such fee as may be prescribed.gEde copy of the lltle deed of the land duly atlcsted by a czzelted Officei ol thc Governmenl together with an urban land ceiling lhe ceiling limit or an clearance certilicate if lll€ extent of the land exc€ aflidav( declaring lhal lhe tolal exlent of land by such holde., or his or her spouse and unmarried chlldren does not exceed the ceiling limit. €ds Provided that no such fee shall be necessary in the care of an application made by a Departrnenl of the GovernBEnt. ot any local asthority. (3) on recetpt ol an application tor pe(mission under suFsection (l) the Authority, afler makhg silch enquiry as it consider necessary, in relation to id) of sub-seclion (2) ol Section 7, or ln relalion any rnalter specilied in ctaus€ to any other matter. shaii by otaler in wriling eilher gaant lhe permission. in the order or refuse subject lo such ccnditions, il any, as rnay be sp€cjfied lo grant such permission. {4) Whe.e prmission ts relused. lhe grounds of such refusal shall be recorded in writing and communicaled lo the applicant in the mann€. determined by regulations. (5) lf, within ninety days after the receipl of any applicatlon made urder lhls section ior permissiofl. or ol any inlormation or turther information requi.ed under rules or regulsticns, the Aulhority has nellher granled nor refused its permissicn. such pernlissicn shall be deerned to have been granted, and the applicanl may proceed to carry out lhe developrnent bul not so as lo conlravene any of the provtsions o( this Act or any rules ot rcgulalions rnacle (6) The Authority shall keeP a register of applicatlons lor petmission under this seclion in such lorm as may be determlned by regulalions. (7) The said registel shall cootain such paniculars including intormatlon as lo the manner in which applications lor permission have been dealt with, as riay be determined by reguiations and shall be available for inspection by any member ol lhe publrc during specified hours on payment of such fee, nol exceeding live. as may be qetermlned by regulations. {8) Where permissroe is refused under lhis section the applicanl or any person claiming lhrough him shall not be entilled lo gel rerund Df the lee paid on the appllcation ior permis.ton- Under Secton 14 every person desiring to obtain the permission relerred k l Section 13 shall make an application to the authority and the application contiains s(r( l particulars rn respect of lhe development to which the application relates, as may t ] determined by the regulat ons. Section l4 (2) provides lor payment of fee as may t ) prescribed and Seclon 14{3) provides lor enquiry of application received under si section (1 ) of Sectlon 1 4 and the enqu rry lor the purpose of sub-section (3) is in resF e t oi matters specified in clause (d) of sub section (2) of Section 7. Therefore, the perr ( I intendrng to obtain permissron has to state details of development and the developrns t prescribed by requlatrons and obtatn permission for executng development as ) r developmenl plan. Section 15: Use ol the land and buildings in cont.avention ol plansi Alter lhe coming inlo operalion ol any ot the plans in a zone, no Person shall use or permil to be used any land ot building in lhal zone otherwise than in con{ormitywlth such plani Provided that il shall be lawful to c-onlinu€ to use upon such lerms and coMitlons as may be d€te.minsd by regulations made in this behall, any land or building for the purpose for whlch, and to the extent to which, it is being used on lhe dale on which such plan cornes into foace." Likewise, Seclion 15 prohibits use of land and buildings in a notjfied development area in conkavention of the zonal development plan and also prohibits the aulhorities from granting permission for development except in accordance with the zonal development plan. Secllon 27: Levy of the develoEnent cha.ges:- (1) Subiect to the provisions ot lhis Act and the tules made the.eunder, the Aulhority shall levy charqes (hereinafler called the developmenl charges) on lhe institution o. (sic. of) use or change of use ol land oi building o. development ot any land or buildihg tor vrhich permiqsion ls required under this Act in lhe whole area or any parl ol the development area wilhin the maximum rale spcified In Section 28. Provided that the rales ol development charges may be diflerenl tor dillerent parls of the development area and lor diflorenl uses: Provided lurther thal th€ previous sanction o( lhe Government has b€en obtained tor lhe ral€s ot levy, (2) Where lhe Authority has deterralned to levy develoF.neni charges for {he {irst tirne or at a new rate, lt shall torlhwith publish a nolilicalion sp€clfying the rates ot levy of developmenl charges. (3)The developmeflt charges shall be leviable on any person who instilutes or charges any such uses, undertakes oa carries out any such developaneol. (4) Nottyilhslaoding anything conlained in sub-seclions (1) and (2), no developrnent charges shall be levi€d on inslitution ol use or of change ol us€ or developmeol ot, any land or buildlng vesled in or und€r possession of lhe Cenlral or lho State GovernEEnl or ol any local authorlty. the conlrol or Under Section 27, the authority is empowered to levy development charges on the rnsltutron of use as per the zonal development plan; for charges for change of use ol land'or building, development of any land or building lor which permission is required under Act 1 of 1975. The development charges payable under lhis Section are for institulion of use; change of use of land or building or development of any building or area lor which a pe.mission is required. From the nature ol le!ry under Section 27, it is discernible that the levy is a charge payable for undenaking development as per the notified zonal development plan to Urban Development Authodty- Section 28: Rates ol Developmenti (1)(a) For the purpose of assessing lhe developmenl charges, lhe use of land and building shall be classilied under the following categories: (i)lndustrial; (ii) Commercial; (ili) Residential; (iv) Agricullural; and (v) Miscellaneous- (b) ln classilying the use o, Iand and building under ahy of the categories mentioned in clause (a), the predominaol purpose for which such land and building are used shall be the main basis for such classification. (2) The rates of development charges shall be determined on the proposed use of land or building:- (a) in the case ol development ol land, at a rate to be ptescribed per hectare for that area- (b) in the case ol developmett of bullding, at a rate to be prescribed per square metle ol floor area for lhat area; (Provided that such rates ol developmenl charges shall not exceed rupees three hundred per square meter in lhe case of development ol land and rupees one hundred and lwenty live p€t square meter in the case ol development ol building). Provideal further that where land apPurtenant to a building is used lor any purpose independent of tha building, development charqe may be levied separately for the building ar* the land." The developmenl charges are payable according to the broad classification slall in Section 28 of the Acl- Section 29 provides 1or assesimeot and recovery of development charges by l1 authority Irom the applicant developiDg a property- Belore concluding the scope and the ambll of various aspects namely lonq till( preamble, definittons, enacting c ause or formula, operative and principal provisions a'l administrative provislons of Ac1 1 of l975 we deem it appropriate to refer to the t'tua Development Authority R!les, 1977. lllustratlvely stated the rates ot developml)r charges under Sechon 28 dIe as follows. For Land For Built up area Olher & Gram 12 Outs d. institutron ol use or change ot use a. vacanl lo Flesrdenral b vacanlto commeE al d. Vacanllo Mrsce l..eous 1r Change ollanduse a Recreationa io Besdennal b Flecreato.allo Comme.c a c. Recreatonal lo lndlslral d Rccrcatonal to Mrsce aneous e. Agncullural/Consetuation cr' Green Belt io Rss dential L 75 75 1C0 --50 60 30 60 30 60 60 100 50 r25 125 125 60 30 30 204 225 200 200 100 50 150 60 r00 60 r00 50 100 100 100 60 45 60 60 60 150 100 50 75 45 From lhe above, it is clear that a person interested in development o land/plotbuilding is required to pay the above development charges to the authcri under Act 1 of 1975. The la\y ptrdevelopment charges is for institution ol use i'e', t notilied use in ihe zonal cEvetoprnent plan, conversion fee for change of developrr-' .nr ; , use lrom residentral to commercial or as the case may be. Likewise, conversion of land use from recreation to residenlial, residential to commercial etc., is provided subject to payment of development charges as applicable to a category. Therefore, the marn object ol Act 1 of 1975 is fordevelopment of urban areas according to master plan/zonal development plan and provide lor matters ancillary thereto. The short tifle ol Act I ol 1975 further reinforces the scope and obiect ot Act 1 ol 1 975 as an enactment inlended for planned development of notilied urban areas. Act 1 of 1975 defines development and provides for planned development of urban areas. To remove difficulties in implementation of Act 1 of 1975, a few development activities are removed kom developmenl area/ull]an area together with the obligation to apply for permission under Sections 13, 14and 15 of Act l of 1975 and this woutd go to show that the Act is primarily concerned with development ot "urban area in accordance with master plan/zonal development plan. ln the process, the development charges are paid for inslitution ol use or change of land use, and the payment of development lees are atlributable towards development charges payable to an authority under the Act by a developer of building,4and etc., as the case may be, but not a conversion lee as contended the appellants- Re stated with emphasis, in our considered view, Act I ol 1975 defines development, declares u.ban areas lor development and provides for civtc survey and preparation of zonal developmeflt plan by the authoity. A person, who underlakes either construction of a burlding or development oI land, is required to pay devetopment fee under Sections 14 and 27 of Act 1 ot 1975 to the Urban Developmenl Authorily tor undertakrng development as provided in the zonal development plan. lnagivencase,it on the applrcation ol a developer, change ol land user is granted through a notification under Sectron l3 or Secton 15, such change of land use enables the applicanl to take up development contrary to notified master pan/zonal development plan already notilied under Section 7 of the Act. Thereatter, the prohibition conlained under Sectioo 15 ol the Act is not atlracled to such development. Therefore, notification under Act I ol 1975 kom any view point cannot be treated as a conversion ol land from agriculture purpose to non-agnculture purpose. From lhe scheme ol Acl 3 of 2006, we are of the view that conversion tax rs payable for use of agricultural land for non agncultural purpose to the Government, whereas development fee is payable under Act 1 of 1975 by a developer of building,4and for institution of use or change of land use to Urban Development Authonty. These two levies namely the land conversion tiax under Act 3 ol 2006 and the development fee for development acco.ding to master plan/zonal development plan are separate and distinct. ln Municipal Council, Kota, Rajaslhan's case, while considering lhe impact ol name of a levy, the Apex Court held thus: a and Another. AIR lion v. The Unron of I "Whenever a challenge is made to tho levy ol ta,x, its validity may have lo be rnainly determined wnh reterence to the legislative comp€lence or power to levy the same and in adiu@ing this issue lhe nature ard character of the tax has to be inevitably determined at the threshold lt s equally axiomatrc that once the legislature concerned has been held to possess lhe power to levy the tax the motive with which the tax is imposed become immaterial and irrelevanl and the facl lhat a wrong reason lor exeEsing lhe power has been given also would not in any manner derogate from'lhe validfy of the ta-x. ln [4]s Jullundur Rubber Goods (1970) sc Manufacturers 1589 this Coun while &aling with a challenge to the levy ol rubber cess under Seetion 12 (2) ot lhe Bubbc!\E!, 1947 as amended in 1960 observed that the tax in the nalure ol excise duty does nol cease to be one such merely because the stage ol levy and collection has been as a matler ol legrslative polacy shrfted by actually providing lor its levy and collectlon kom the users o{ rubt}er, so long as the character of the duty as excise duly rs nol lost and lhe incidence of tax remained to be on the production or rnanuJacture ol goods Lrkewise. once the legislature is found to possess the required legislative competence to enact the law imposing the tax, the limils ol that compelence cannol be ludged further by lhe lorm or manner in \,vhich that power is exercised. In (Mo(is) Leventhal and Others v. oavid Jones, Ltd., AIB (1930) PC 129, the queston arose as lo lhe power of lhe legislatlrre to irnpose 'Bridqe Tax when ttE power to legislale was really in respecl ol lax on land'. Il was held therein as follows: -The appellants'contenton thal though drreclly rmp()sed by the legislature, the bfldge tax is not a land lax, was sLrpported by argument lounded in particular on two manfest lacts. The bridge lax does not exlend to land generally throughout New Soulh Wales, but 10 a limited area comprising the City of Sydney and certain specified shires, and lhe purpose o{ the 1ar is not lhal of providing the public revenue lor the cornmon purposes ol lhe Slate but ol providrng funds for a parlicular scheme of betlerment. No aslhor ty was vouched for tlle proposilion thal an imposl lard by statute upon property wrthin a defined area, or upon specdied classes of property. or upon specified classes ol persons. is not whhin the true significance of the term a tax- Nor so jar as appears has it ever been successfully contended that revenue raised by statulory tmposts for specdlc purposes is nol iaxation" Similady, the contenton of appellants thal the conversion lax virlually amorrnts I double taxation on the same subject is misconceived and thal the levy ol lal conversion tax is by the Government and devstopment fee by lhe U.ban Developmr)r Authority. ln Badhakisan Rathi v. Additional Collector-, the Apex Coud wl- | t't 3l considering the compelence of different authorities lo lrnpose tax on the same subi)( matter held thus: ln the light of the afo#sad ielevant provisions of the Panchayats Acl we have to consider the qluestio[-posed lor our decision. lt is obv o(rs thal a cinema theatre situated wrthrn the teqdorial limits ol local municipahty or a corPoraton can be taxed by the concerned mL6bipatity'in exerclse of its powers under the relevant Municipal Act. 8ul if the same theatre is also situaled wilhin a block duly consliiuled under the PanchayaG Act it would {all within the territoral limils of the concerned Janapada Panchayat conslrtuted lor that block as lad down by Sectpn 103 read with Section 104 of the Panchaya[s Act ,Ooce lhat happens the concerned Janapada Panchayat would obviously berotilled,loJnvoke its taxation powers under Secton 157lor the area wthin its iurisr4Efioo.l4d,il a theatre is siluated wilhin that area then obvrously Seelia!-l5z would get atrracted lor imposing the twin types of taxes mentioned by Secnon 157 which are permissibte ro be imposed by the Janapada panchayal. lt is now well seltted thal the same subiecl maner can b€ covered by taxalion nets ihposed by difterenl compelenl taxing authoflties and there will be rb double laxa on involved,n such case. We may reler in this connection to the decision of lhls Courl in lhe case ol [1990] 3 SCC 545. Para 30 ol the repon at page 654 IayS down as under "30 Where more lhan one legislative authorily, such as lhe Slate legElalure and a locat or municjpal body possess the power to levy a tax, there ts nolhtng in lhe Constitulion to prevent Ihe same person or property being sub,ect to both the Stare and municipal taxation or the same legislature erercrsrng rts power tr.yice for diflerent purrloses_ ln Avinder in Apnl 1977 required lhe vaflous municipal bodaes in lhe State to impos e tax on the sale of lndian made loreign tiquor @Re. I per bottje w.e.t_ tr, ay 20,1977. The municipat arJtholties having laited to take action pursuanl to the directive the State of Punjab directly 6sued a Noufication uncler Seclon 90(5) of tho punjab Municrpal Corporation Act, 1976 and similar p(ovision ot the Municipat Act, 1911. The peltioner cha,lenged the constitutionaj validity o, tt€ sajd stalutes and Ihe levy on the, inter alia, ground of double laxalion. Krishna lyer, J speaking lor the Courl held (SC C p.la4, para 4) -There rs nothing in Anicte 265 ot lhe Conslilution ,rom which one cao spin out the Conslrtulionaj vlce called double laxaton (Bad economics may be good law and vice versa). Dealjng with a some\,yhal simrlar argument, the gombay Hgh Court gave short shr'tt to it rn Western tndja Theatres. Some undeservtng contentons dre hard, rather survive aller death. The only efitapi we may Inscnbe is: Rest rn peace aod don,l be rebornl ll one the same sublect matter the legistatL,re chooses to levy lar twice over there ts oo inherenl invali,City in lhe fiscal a(tuenture save where olher prohibillons exist_, All the citations relied upon by the tearned Advocates Generat appearing for lhe States ol Andhra pradesh and Telangana are not considered, for the view we have independenlly taken on the scope and ambit ol lhese tlvo enactments. Having considered the provisrons ol both lhe enactments independently and after intepreting the Sectons rn the manner indrcated above and by relying upon the principles of law laid down by Apex Court tn KSL & lndustries Ltd,s case, we are ol the view that the submissions oI teamed counsel appearing lor the a ppellanls a@ de void o! any merils and are accordrngty reJecled Hence, rt is held that either the scope and t te ambit or payment ol land conversion tax and the Development fee under Act 3 ot 2006 and Acl 1 ol t975 are separate and drslncl. The question is answered accordingly. The further contenlion of learned counsel lor the appellants that the u6an Development Authority cannot insist upon production of NOC from Revenue Divisional Officer under Act 3 ot 2006 by reference to the penalties provrded under Section 6 of Acf 3 of 2006, is equalty unfounded. May be that under Section 6 o, Act 3 of 2006, penalty for recovery of rand conversion tax with fine is provided for That does not mean U,atthe Govemment wilh a view to synchronizing the lunctioning ol all the depadments and prevent loss of revenue cannot calt upon the Urban Development Authority to insisl produclion ofNoc from lhe Revenue Divlsional officer under Act 3 o, 2006. The urban I I Development Authonty construing strictly gets jurisdiction to entertain an applicalio I or which conversion tax is paid under Act 3 of 2006 and lhe NOC can be justified by I is reason as well. The insislence at besl can be keated a concomrtant and the author I )S can certainly insist upon NOC from applicant Ior processing lhe application made u I 3r Secbon 14 of Act 1 of 1975. For the view we have taken on questions (i)(ii) and (iii , o exception could be found against the impugned common order dated 28.04.2010. For the reasons stated above, the appeals are wthout merit and accord|( y dismissed As we have confirmed the common order daled 2A.O4.2O1O,we are incinei o dispose of writ petitions as lollows: a) lt shall be competent ,or he Urban Development Aulhoriltes or the Local Authorities, as the case may be, to jnsist on ' - submission of alearance/permission under the 2006 Act as a condition precedent tor releasing ot layouts. and b) the land has been put lo non-agricullural use be{ore the 2006 Act Came into lorce, SUCh cjearance/permtssron Shallnot Oe tns sted. c) Conversion of Jand inlo Non-agricultLrral use under the prov sions ot Act 3 of 2006 is necessary even if the land is covered by MasteY Plan and sanction of layout by Ihe Developmerrl Authority under lhe provisions ot Acl I ol 1975. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any pendrng. atso stand dispos€ l No costs. DILIP B.BHOSALE, ACJ S.V.BHATT, J Date:28.08.2015 stP Daooolu s"" rao B o,n aooo sc ,s"s B o,R aoo, sc ,oro H(r*o) o a"" oou Erooo;, sc" r* @n," ,ggs o" :s, E atn rsso sc p"g" r r g 1,nrn1 a scc r, g 1,sao1 , scc o,o U 1985(supp) scc 205 u1roo,1. scc r* B lros;, scc sro E 1r*u; . ,on """ ?Iffi