Syed Shujath Ali v. 1. Government

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fild therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Wdt , Order or Direction , more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare G.O. Ms No. 7 Dt. 05{1-2016 and G.O.Ms No . 168 Dt.0744-2O12 as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional aM not in accordance with Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013 and further direct the respondents to issue TDR Certificates in case of file no 74674 Dated 0'l.11112012 in terms of G.O.Ms No . 33O datled 2811212O17 for the land admeasuring 3914.O6 Sqmts acquired in T.S.No. 2Ol1lA,2012, Block F, Ward No 87 in Survey No . 20/4, Somajiguda, Hyderabad. lA NO: I OF 2019 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to issue notice to the respondents and direct them to file counter within two weeks. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI PAPPU i{AGESWARA RAO, Sr. COUNSEL, REP. FOR Ms. V.MYTHILI Counsel for the Respondent No.l: GP FOR MCPL ADMN URBAN DEV Counsel for the Respondent No.2 & 3: SRI G.MADHUSUDHAN REDDY, SC FOR GHMC The Court made the following: ORDER HONOURABLE SRIIUSTICE B. VIIAYSEN REDDY WRIT PETITION No.25519 OF 2019 ORDER: (ORAL) This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking the following relief: "...to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare G.O. Ms No : 7 Dt: 05-01-2016 and G.O.Ms No : 168 Dt:0744-20t2 as illegal, arbihary and uncomtitutional and not in accordance with Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013 and further direct the respondents to issue TDR Certificates in case of file no 74674 Dated 0lllll20l2 in terms of G.O.Ms No : 33O datet 2811212017 for the land admeasuring 3914.06 Sqmts acquired in.T.S.No: 20ll/L20/2, Block F, Ward No 87 in Survey No : 2014, Somajigud4 Hyderabad and pass..."

2. It is submitted that the petitioner and others are the absolute cwners and possessors of the land admeasuring 8856 square meters in T.S. No.20l11A, 2012, Block-F, Ward No.87 in Survey No.20l4, Somajiguda, Hyderabad; they have applied for building permission for construction of Ground + 9 upper floors and building permission was sanctioned to them suQiect to surrender of 3914.06 square meters for road widening purpose. IWs Sri Aditya Homes Private Limited represented by its Managing Director by name Mr. V.Kota Reddy, the builder of the petitioner and his family members, made an application on 07.1 1.2014 ,'or issuance of TDR (Transferable Development Rights) Certificates in lieu of the land adrneasuring 3914.06 square meters surrendered for tlre \ 2 -i ) purpose of road widening purpose as per G.O.Ms No.l68 dated

07.04.2012 and G:O.Ms. No.7 (MA) dated 05.11.2015 for issuance of TDR 250% certificate. Accordingly, TDR certificate was issued to the petitioner and his family members on 28.12.2016. It is subrnitted that G.O.Ms No.7 was introduced by the Govemment to' facititate ease of doing business for people coming forward to develop real estate, to simpliff the business rules, to give some concessions, to remove certain bottlenecks in the existing buildings and to promote investment in the real estate sector in the State of Telangana. Therefore to encourage the real estate sector and to provide employment and economic growth, the (lovemment made amendments to the Building Rules issued by virttre of G.O.Ms. No.168 (MA) dated 07.M.2012 read with G.O.Ms. No.245, (MA) dated 30.06.2012. That to attract more development, the Govemment issued G.O.Ms. No.330 dzrted28.L2.2Ol7 to reasonably compensate the tand losers and to create demand for TDR and thereby encourage the property owners to voluntarily come forward for surrendering their lands for the purpose ofroad widening free ofcost.

3. It is submitted that as per G.O.Ms. No.330, the 400%o TDR has to be given in lieu of the land surrendered by the property owners towards -1 road widening. It is further submitted that the petitioner is entitled for 400% TDR as per the G.O.Ms. No.330. T\e 250Yo TDR which,was given to the petitioner is a meager compensation and not in tune with the provisions of the Rig;ht to Fair Compensation and Transparenc! in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation ald Resettlernent Act 2013. As many of the land losers did not come forward to voluntarily surrender their lands owing to meager 250% TDR" the Government issued G.O.Ms. No.330. It is submitted that TDR Certificates have been issued to two (2) penons by name Mr. K.Venu and Mr. Sivakuri Anant Ramchander as per G.O.Ms. No.330. However, representations submitted by the petitioner for giving benefit of the TDR under G.O.Ms. No.330 were rejected by respondent No.3 vide impugned proceedings dated 20.08.2018.

4. tramed Standing Counsel for GHMC submitted that the land of the petitioner admeasuring 3914.06 square meters was surrendered in 20l4l' 25O% TDR certificate was issued oa 28.12.2016 as per G.O.MS. No.7 which was in vague tlren- G-O.Ms. No.330 cam€ into effect from 28.12.2017 wherein the TDR limit was raised to 400%. G.O.Ms. No.330 is applicable to the lands acquired from the date of its issuance and it has no retrospective effect. 4 (- (-

5. It is a matter of record that the petitioner and his farrily members applied for building permission for the land admeasuring 8856.00 square meters subject to strrender of the land admeasuring 3914.06 square meters. On application submitted by the petitioner and family members thmugh their builder, 250% TDR certificate was issued on 28.12.2016 as per G.O.Ms. No.7. It is not in dispute that on the date of TDR c€rtificate was issued to the petitioner, G.O.Ms. No.7 was in operation while G.O.Ms. No.330 came into effect ftom 28.12-2017. The petitioner intended to avail the benefit of the additional ls0yo TDR as per G.O.Ms. No.330 and his application, in that regard, was considered bi respondent No.3 and was rejeeted videLr. No.703/TPS/HO/GHMC/2018/703 dated

20.08.2018. Thereafter, the petitioner filed W.P. No.44179 of 20'18 before this Court which was disposed of by order dated 3t.12.2018 directing respondent No.l to dispose of the application of the petitioner in terms of the G.O.Ms. No.330 rja,td 2A.D.2017. T\e petitioner was directed to bring to the notice of respondent No.I the henefit given to other persons who stand. on the same footing as that of the petitioner seeking 400% TER as per G.OMs. No.330. [n compliance of the order dated 31.12.2018 passed by this Court in W.P. No.,t4179 of 2018, respondent No.I considered the representation/apptication of the ) petitioner and passed order dated 04.09.2019 rejecting the request of the petitioner.

6. The relevant portion ofthe order passed by respondent No.l reads as under: "...In this connection you are infonned that the approval of Master plan has no bearing ofl the quantum of the TDR to be allowed. As per G.O Ms No.7, Dt.05-0t-2016 only 250% of TDR of surrendered land shall only be allowed. In G.O Ms No.330, MA Dt. 28-12-2017 the TDR limit is raised to 400%. Since no retrospective effect is ordered : in the said G.O., it takes only prospective nd 400% is to be allowed only in cases on or after Dt.28-12-2017, but will not b€ applicable to old cases already settled. Therefore recognizing this, the Hon'ble High Court has ordered that you may approach the Govemment for extending the benefit of 400Yo TDR if you feel that the 400o/o TDR benefit was extended to any similar cases. Hence in pursuance of the Hon'ble High Court orders you are supposed to request the Govemment for extending any such benefit with proofofsuch past cases. Therefore you .re requested to approach the Government for necessary orders by citing any such precedent cases by following the Hon'ble High Court orders. You are also further requested to shelve the proposal to file contempt case against all the three address entries noted in the legal notice of the Advocate."

7. It is thus, clear from the impugned letter of respondent No.l that G.O.Ms. No.330 does not have any retrospective effect. As discussed above, the land of the petitioner was surrendere d in 2014 by which date G.O.Ms. No.7 was in force. The petitioner, in fact, applied for the -l ) 6 r- a- benefit under G.O.Ms. No.7 and received 250% TDR. Merely, because TDR rate has been enhanced to 400oh, subsequently, the petitioner cannot claim benefit under G.O.Ms. No.330. G.O.Ms. No.330 which came into effect from 28.12.2017 cannot be given rehospective operation. Further, TDR benefits given to Mr. lCVenu'and Mr. Sivakuri Anant Ramchander were in 2019 and related to the lands in Khajaguda Junction and Jubilee Hills which were acquired after G.O.Ms. No.330 came into effect.

8. Thus, the petitioner cannot claim 400% TDR on par witi; Mr. K.Venu and Mr. Sivakuri Anant Ramchander. There are no merits in this writ petition. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to. costs. As a sequel thereto, miscpllaneous applications, if any, pending in th,is writ petition stand closed. s6': A Hai.,fflTiSEA[SE ,fTRUE COPY,, SECTION OFFICER / / To, '1. One CC to Ms. V.MYTHILI, Advocate IOPUC] 2. One CC to SRI G.MADHUSUDHAN REDDY' SC FOR GHMC IOPUC] - lelingana at HYderabad [OUTI 3TwoCcStoGPFoRMCPLADMNURBANDEV,HighCour.tfortheStateof 4. Two CD CoPies BSR Y^" BM '. HIGH COURT DATED: 0610812025 ORDER WP.No.25519 of 2019 THE S i4 Y ? 0 ,lnn nza ' ) o _t- * I DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION, WTHOUT COSTS \ ."{4 k6,