The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court may be preased direct the respondents to rerease the sanction pran and construction permission to the petitioner for the proposed constructions which are technica[y approved situated in Survey No' 162/p, and 163/p of yaprar Viilage, rr/arkagiri lt/andar, Ranga Reddy District without insisting for the production of rand conversion certificate from the Revenue Authorities pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI KARRI MURALI KRISHNA Counsel for the Respondents No.1&2 : SRI K.RAVI MAHENDER counsel for the Respondent No.3 : sRI V.NARSTMHA GouD, sc FoR HMDA counsel for the Respondent No.4 : Gp FoR MUNCTPAL ADMN & URBAN DEV The Court made the following: ORDER :) t / HON'BLE SRI J US'TICE K.I-AKSHMAN Writ Petition No.31119 of 2010 Order: None appears for the petitioner.

2. Heard Mr. K.Ravi Mahender, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents No.1 and 2 and Sri V.Narsimha Goud, leamed Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.3.

3. Petitioner herein is claiming that he is the absolute owner and possessor of land admeasuring Acs.1.2O guntas in Survey Nos.162 and 163 of Yapral Village, Ranga Reddy District. He has submined an application for building pennission on 12.10.2010. However, uide Lr.No.37O16l12/10/2010 darcd 12.11.2010, respondent No.2 has been irsisting for production of land conversion certificate from revenue authorities for release of the sanction pian and grant of permission for construction of building in the said land.

4. The aforesaid issue is no more a res integra.

5. This Court disposed of a batch of writ petitions and a Division Bench dismissed batch of writ appeals filed challenging the coirrmon 2 order dated 2B.A4.2O\O passed by a leamed Single Judge of this C-oun in \X/.P.Nos.26 68g of 2OO7 and batch.

6. By the aforesaid order, leamed Single Judge held that it shall be comperenr for the Urtan Developmenr Authorities or the local authorities, as the case may be, to insist on submission of clearance/permission under the Andhra pradesh Agricultural (Conversion for Non-Agricultural pulposes) Act, 2006 (for short .the 2006 Act) as a condition precedent for releasing of layouts and that if the land has been pur ro non-agriculrural use before the 2006 Act came into force, such clearance,/permission shall not be insisted.

7. Paragraphs 42. 43 and 51 of the Division Bench judgment are relevant and the sarne are extracted below: "From the above, it is clear that a person interested in development of a land,/plot/iuilding is required b pay the above development charges to the aurhority under Act I of 1975. The ler.y of development charges is for institution of use i.e., the notified rrse in the zonal development plan, conversion fee for change of development ue from residential ro commercial or as the case may be. Likewise. conversion of land use from recrearion ro l .,e, 1 ./,. 3 residential, residential to commercial etc., is provided subject ro paymenr of development charges as applicable ro a caregory. Therefore, the main object of Act 1 of 1975 is for development of urban areas according to master plat/ znnal development plan and provide for matters ancillary thereto. The shon title of Act 1 of 1975 fwther reinforces the scope and object of Act 1 of 7915 as an enactment intended for planned development of notified ur"ban 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 from development arealurban area together with the obligation to apply for permission under Sections 13, 14 and 15 of Act 1 of 1975 and rhis would go to show that the Act is primarily concemed with development of "urtan area" in accordance with master plan/zanal developmenr pian. In the process, the development charges are paid for institution of use or change of land use, and the pay,rnent of development fees are attributable towards development charges payable to an authority under the Act by a developer of building/land etc., as the ) ::4:: case nlatr be, but not a conversion fee as contended the appellants. Re-stated with emphasis, in our considered view, Act 1 of 1975 defines development, declares urban areas for development and provides for civic survey and preparation of zonal development plan by the authority. A person, who undenalres either constmction of a building or development of land, is required to pay development fee under Sections 14 and 27 of Act 1 of 1975 to the Urtran Developmenr Authoriry for undertaking development as provided in the z-onal development plan. In a given case, if on the application of a developer, change of land user is granted through a notification under Section 13 or Section 15, such change of land use enables the applicant to take up development contrary to notified master pan/znnal development plan already n<rtified under Section 7 of the Act. Thereafter, the prohibition contained under Section 15 of the Act is not attracted to such development. Therefore, notification under Act I of 1975 from any view point cannot be treated as a conversion of land from agriculture pulpose to non- agriculture pu{pose. / 5 As we have confirrned the common order darcd28.04.2010, we are inclined to dispose of writ petitions as follows: a) It shall be competent for the Urtan Development Authorities or the Local Authorities, as the case may be, to insist on submission of cleannce/ permission under the 2006 Act as a condition precedent for releasing of layous, and b) the land has been put to non-agriculural use before the 2006 Act came into force, such clearance,/permission shall nor be insisted. c) Conversion of land into Non- agricultural use under the provisions of Act 3 of 2006 is necessary even if the land is covered by IMaster Plan and sanction of layout by the Development Authoriry under the provisions of Act 1 of 1975;'

8. Learned Standing C-ounsel appearing for the respondents, on instructions, would submit that no Special Leave Petition is filed challenging the aforesaid Division Bench judgment and it had attained finality. 6 9 In the light o[ the same, petitioner is not entitled to any relief, much less the relief sought for in the present writ petition. Impugned proccedings dated 12.11.2010 of respondent No2 are in consonance with the aforesaid order of the Division Bench.

10. Therelorc. this \X/rit Petition is liable to be dismissed and is, accordingly, disnrissed. No costs. Related interlocutory applications, pending if any, stand closed. ,TRUE COPY// SD/- P.Ch. NAGABHUSHAMBA TANT REGISTRAR \--.- SECTION OFFICER N One CC to SRI KARRI MURALI KRISHNA, Advocate. [OPUC] One CC to SRI K.RAVI MAHENDER, Advocate. [OPUC] One CC to SRI V.NARASIIVIHA GOUD, SC FOR HMDA. [OPUC] Two CCs to GP for Municipal Administration and Urban Development, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUTI To, 1 Z 3 4 5 Two CD Copies BSK GJP YL- HIGH COURT I I DATED:1il02t2025 ir 4t€ t + J o (j 0 2 Jlji,i 2s25 c .b t {L.-..; ORDER WP.No.31119 of 2010 i DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS q .9Pkb w f.iF