Writ Appeal No. 702 of 2010 · The High Court · 2025

Order

This writ petition is filed seeking following relief: "Declaring the action of the respondent No. I in imposing the condition in its letter dated 22.Ol.2OLi-> bearing No.lO2629 / LOlPLG/HMDLI 2Ol4 directing the petitioner to obtain "NOC" from the Revenue Divisional Officer as per A.P.A.L. Act, 2006 notified uide G.O.Ms.No. 1537, Revenue (Land Revenue) dated

19.10.2006 as illegal and contrary." 2 When the matter is taken up for hearing, learned Standing counsel for respondent No.l brought to the notice of this Court that in Writ Appeal No.702 of 2010 and batch, the Hon'ble Division Bench of this I I Court in "Sri K. Satgano;nda Patnaik, S/o. late If.G.S. Pandga and others a. T'he Hgderabad Urban Deaelopment Authoritg"t has disposed of the matters with the following observations: "a) It shall be competent for the Urban Development Authorities or the Local Authoritics, as the casc may be, to insist on submission of clearance/permission under the 20O6 Act as a condition precedent for releasing of layouts, and b) the land has been put to non-agricultural use before the 2006 Act carne into force, such clearance/permission shall not 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 Master Plan and sanction of layout by the Development Authority under the provisions of Act 1 of. 1975." -/ '2015 SCC online Hyd 6o0 2

3. The issues raised in the present writ petition is squarely covered by the order passed by this court in ..sri K. satgananda patnaik, s/o. lqte r(G.s. Pandga and others a. The Hgderabad. Urban Deaelopment Authoritg' (cited supra) ancl learned counsel for the petition:rs did not dispute the same. 4- A:cordingly, this Writ Petition is disposecl of in terms of orders passed by ttris court in "sri K. satgo;no;ncla patnaik, s/o. late.t(.c.s. Pandgu and others a. The rtgderabad. tJrban Deaelapmemt Authoritg" (cited supra). There shall be no order as to costs. IVliscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand dismissed. SD/.P.PONNA KRISHNA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR (e SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To,

1. The Vice Chairman, Hyderabad tVletropolitan Development Authority, Green -Secretaiy, Revenue Department, Telangana Secretariat, State lands, Siomajiguda, Hyderabad.

2. The Principai of Telarrgana, Hyderabad - 5OO 022.

3. One CC-to SRI SRINIVAS VELAGAPUDI, Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to SRI V NARASIMHA GOUD, (SC FOR HIMDA) Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two COs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

6. Two CD Copies (Along with the copy of order dated 28.08.2015, in W.A.No.702 of 2010 & batch) MMT TKS Nrr HIGH COLJRT DATED i2it-lABl2025 - ORDER WP.No.2'[593 of 2015 1HES o() 2 ? JAll 20?$ * .3i_],{irf:i DISPOSIT{G THE WRIT PETITON WITHOUT COSTS t.t' a\* \ HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DILIP B. BHOSALE AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE S.V.BHATT W.A.Nos.702l2010,741t201O,742t2010,74312010,74712010,75412010,75712010, 758t2010. 1030t2010. 1u7t2010. 106312410. 7:712011. 32712011. 443t2011. 133712012. 53312015. 296/2012. W.P.Nos.8666/2008. 15278/2008. 164972008. 17092/2008. 18512/2008. 1872712008. 18796t2008. 24687t2008. 26723t2008. WP 27918t2008.2834212008.972t2009. 1260/2009. 3893/2009. 642712@9. 6442/2@9. 6504/2009. 7659,2009. 8339/2@9. 9368/2009. 9404/2009. 9908/2009. 18151/2009.'18464/2009. 934/2010. 25461/2010. 25469/2010. 30999/2010. 32531/2010. 2913/201 1. 3308/201 1. 6643/201 1. 6730/201 1. 6958/201 1. 7472201 1. 7 476t2011 . afi3t2011. 9429tm11. 991 snofi . 203/.1 1201 1. 213851201 1. 22907 1201 1. 22933t2O11. 24A51 n011 . 24798t2O1 1. 250p]212O1 1. 25785t2O1 1. 277 65 t 2O1 1. 27950t201 1. 2863,Et2011.30235t2o11.32427t2011.34704t2011.27312012.274t2012.59712012. 1085t2012- 2151t2012. 507512012. 5076,12012. 520i/,m12. 5631t2012.. 11345/2012. 17457t2012. 18ffi9t2012. 21070t2012. 34169t2012. 358/.1t2012. 386712012. 36855t2012. 36905t2012. 36939t2012. 36952n0n2. 37579tN12. 3758iA12012. 3980412012. 1377t2013. 2053t2013. 3293/2013. 3521/2013. 4095/2013. 6065/2013. 6274t2013.6637/2013.6850/2013. 8871/2013. 8946/2013. 9336/2013. 9828/2013. 9957/2013. 10297/2013. 10637/2013. 10704/2013. 10705/2013. 10894/2013. 11855/2013. 13337/2013. 13868/2013. 13889/2013. 14487/2013. 154Ut2013. 15982t2013. 17284t2013. 17416t2013. 17626t2013. 17789/2013. 18188/2013. 20448t2013. 20695t2013. 21439tn13. 2188112013. 22s64t2013. 22877t2013. 22909t2013. 23423t2013.2m40tm13 28093t2013.31533t2013. 105t2014. 148t2014. 985t2014. 1060t2014. 1225t20'.14. 1229t12014. 1398t2014. 2074t2014.3030t2014. 4231!2014. 5321t2014. 565512014. 611712014.75{,0t2014. 7903t2014. 8/i49t2014.9370t2014. 938012014. 9453t2014. 9454t2014. 9777t2014. 982612014. 1669t2014. 1115712014. 11268t2014. 12328t2014. 12388t2014. 1264t2014. 12870t2014. 13356t2014. 1379112014. '1506712014. 15268,t2014. 15460t2014. 15473t2014. 1547912014. 1569012014. 1574412014. 1667312014. 1700212014. 1721212014. 1751 5t201 4. 1758E,t201 4. 18259t201 4. 188581N1 4. 19061 t201 4. 19163t201 4. 1917 1 t2o1 4. 19281t2014. 19422t2014. 2168012014. 218301m14. 2249412014. 22559t2014. 23299t2014. 2419212014. 24327t2014. 2492012014. 2511312014. 25674t2014. 25N6t2014. 26422t2014. 28221 t201 4. 28223t201 4. 283121201 4. 2W 641201 4. 28€,51 l8l 4. 29222t201 4. 292601201 4. 3104at2014. 3242912014. 3351512014. 3465712014. 346981N14. 3473512014. 34738t2014. 34ffit2014. 35191t2014. 3552512014. 355551n14. 4097012014. 41159t2014. 420t2015- 873t2015. 8761N15. 197612015. 19821N15. 211312015.2237t2015. 3035t2015.3419t2015. 3766/201 5. 3857/201 5. 4553/201 5. 51 64/201 5. 5234/201 5. 5974/201 5. 6036/201 5. 6620/201 5. 6690t2015.695912015.7239tm15. 7392t2015.740312015.786612015.8523t2015. 8595t2015. 8746/2015. 8766/2015.8875/20't5. 8898/2015. 9089/2015. 9456/2015. 9492/2015. 9639/2015. 9722t2O15. 1071012015. '1119012015. 11193t2O15. 1121912015. 1145212015. 12451t2015. 12764/2015. 12851/2015. 12941/20'15. 13383/2015. 13788/2015. 13859/2015. 14690/2015. 15610/2015. 15616/2015. 16091/2015. 18279/2015. 18624/2015 and 1 n67t /rnl 5 COMMON ORDER:. (Per Hon'ble sd Justice S.v.Bhatt) Through this common order, we propose to dispose of writ appeals/writ petitions involving common questions ol law. The batch of writ appeals, is directed against the common order dated 28.04.2O1O in W.P.No.26688 of 2007 and the batch. learned Single Judge disposed of the batch of the writ petitions by holding as follows: By the order dated 28.04.2010' the " a) lt shall be competent for the Urban Development Authorities, or the Local Authorities, as the case may be, to insist on submission of clearance/permission under the 2006 Act as a condition precedent for releasing of layouts; and b) the land has been pul to non-agricultural use belore the 2006 Act came intc force, such clearance/permission shall not be insisted." The 2006 Act referred to is the Andhra Pradesh Agricultural (Conversion for Non- Agricultural Purposes) Act, 2006, v,vhich shall be hereinafter called and relened to for short "Act 3 of 2(106". The pray,:rs in the batch of lvrit petitions seek declaration thal the petition lands which are part rlf a zonal developrnent plan under the Andhra Pradesh Urban Areas (Development) r\ct, 1 975 (for short "Act 1 of 1975") are outside the purview ol Act 3 of 2006 or that the lelter issued by the L rban Developmenl Authority calling upon the pelitioners to obtain 'No Oblection Certil cate'/ Clearance under Act 3 ol 2006 lor considering layout application, as illegal, witho:t jurisdiction and unconstitutional. ln the instant batch. the Iollowing questions arise for consideration under the Act 3 of 2006 and the Act 1 of 1 975. i. ii. Wllat is the scope and ambit ol Act 3 of 2006 and Act 1 of 1975, in particular, the scof,e. purpose and effect of payment of Conversion Tax and Development Ch. rges under lhese Acts? Whether the Urban Devolopmenl Authority lor consideration and sanction of layout plans submitted by a developer of a property covered by Development Plan, can insiit upon submission of No Obleclion Certificate/Clearance lrom the Revenue Div sional Oflicer under Act 3 of 2006 ,or processing an application filed for layout app roval? iii. !ruhether it is necessary to get land converted into Non-Agricultural us -: once il is covered by Development Plan and alter the sanction of ayout by the Urban [)evelopment Authority? Heard Mr. M. V. Durga Prasacl, Mr. P. Prabhakar Rao, Mr.Ajay Reddy, learned counsel. [rlr. V. Verrkataramana and Mr. B. Adinarayana Rao, learned senior counsel for appellants/ petitioners and the learned Advocates General for the States ol Telangana and Andhra pradesh. For convr:nience. we reler to the averments in Writ Appeal No.702 ol 2010 arising out of W.P.N(,.26688 ot 2OO7 and the relerence to these allegations is sufficient for understanding the circumstances under which the questions of law arises for decision. The learned counsel appearing for all the parlies advanced arguments on the questions framed above. The cas€ ol appeltants in writ Appeat No. 702 of 2010 is that the appellants are the absolute owners and possessors of the land in Survey No.24zlpafi, 244lpad and 245lPan olB;rhadurpalli Village, Khuthbuilahpur tvtandal, Ranga Reddy District. The appellants claim right and title to the said property through registered sale deeds dated 1 1.03.2005, 28.05.2005, 03.06.2005, 04.06.2005 and 27.12.2005. The appellants under Section 12 of Act 1 ol 1975, applied to the Hyderabad Urban Development Authority/l st respondent for conversion of land use under the zonal development plan' The competent authority through Memo bearing No. 26892i1 MA dated 04.05.2006 issued draft notilication calling for obiections against proposed change of use' The request ol appellanls lor change of land use was accepted lhrough G.O.Ms.No.2B7' Municipal Administratron and Urban Development (l) Department dated 30.05.2006. The appellants applied under Sections l3 and 14 of Act 1 of 1975 lor sanction of layout for the petition land. The 1st respondent called upon the appellants to pay development charges ol Rs.44,10,582/-. The levy of development charges is under sections 27 and 29 of Act 1 of 1975. on 15.11.2007, the appellants paid a sum of Rs.44,10,5821 towards development charges as demanded by the Urban Development Authority. The 1st respondenvUrban Development Authority through LetteI No.1 1766/MP2/Planning/ H/2006 dated 11.11.2OO7 called upon the appellants lo produce 'No Obiection Certificate' (NOC)lrom the District Collector evidencing conversion of sub.lect land into non-agricultural purpose to process the pending application ior approval of layout. The appellants challenge the instant letter on various factual and legal grounds. Brielly stated, the case of 1st respondent, as reflected in the counter affidavit, is lhat as an authority under Act 1 of 1975, the 1st respondent is concerned with the development of an area covered by master plan/zonal development plan as per the purpose specified therein. The 1st respondent admits receipt ol Rs.44,10,582/- towards development charges. As lar as the avelments in letter dated 11.11'2007, the 1st respondent replies that the condition to obtain NOC from tlre authority under Act 3 ol 2006 is insisted upon as per the directives issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh. The 1st respondent alleges that Act 1 ol 1975 cannot be understood as overriding Act 3 of 2006. lt is Stated that an owner intending to develop the land into any ol the purposes stated under the notilied master plarr is required to follow the prescriptions ol Acl 3 ol 2006 and Act 1 of 1975. ln otherwords, it is the case of lst respondent that the amount paid under Act I of 1975 is towards development charges and under Act 3 ot 2006 one time tax is payable and the tax is imposed by B-D.O lor conversion of agricultural land for non-agricultural purposes. Therefore, according to 1sl respondent Acts 1 of 1975 and 3 of 2006 operate in different spheres and the notitications or conversion of land for development purpose cannot be equated aS conversion of agricultural land lor non-agricultural purpose under Act 3 ol 2006- The 1st respondent prays for dismissal of writ petition. The 2nd respondent in their counter affidavit states that the provisions of Act 3 ol - 2006 are applicatrle and binding on a person intending to convert agricultural land for non-agricultural prrpose in spite of any order/notification under Act 1 of 1975. lt is the case of 2nd respondent th it the payment of development fee under Acl 1 of 1975 is to an authority constituted under Act 1 ol 1975 and this levy is in the nature of fee collected towards development charges by the specilied authority. The development charges are payable ir terms of applicable regulations made under Act 1 of 1975 and the f)ayment does not exonerate the appellants lrom the legal obligation ol conversion tax ur der Act 3 ol 2006. The 2nd rest)ondent further stales that under lhe Andhra Pradesh Non-agricultural Land Assessmer I Act. 1 963 (for short 'Act 1 4 of 1963'), lhe Government was authorized to levy non-agricultural land tax upon converrsion of agricultural land into non-agricultural land. Under Act 14 of 963, the authorities; were authorized to collect non-agricultural land tax lrom a person wlro puts agricultural land for non-agricultural use or purpose. The power or authority unde r Act 14 ol 1963 to impose Non-Aqricultural Land Assessment (NALA) Tax on land actr ally used for non-agricultural purpose and the land to be used for non- agricultural purpose was challenged in a batch of writ pelitions and the principle was finally decided by the Supreme Court in Federataon ol A.P. Chambers ol Commerce and tndustry and others vs. State of A.P.H For the purpose ol examining and interpreting Act 3 of 2006, in our view the law declared by the Supreme Court in Federation of A.P. Chambers' case is useful and relevant portion of judgment reads thus: "7. lt is trite law lhat a laxing statute has to be strictly construed and no.hing can be read into it. ln the classic passage trom Cape Brandy Syndicate. which was noticed in the judgment under appeal,.it was said: "ln a taxing Act one has to look merely at what is clearly said. There is no room for any intendmont. There is no equity about a tax. There is no prr)sumption as lo a tax. Nothing is to be read in. nolhing is to be implied. Orre can look lairly at the language used." Tlis view has been reiterated by lhis Cou( time and again. Thus, in The State of Bombay v. Automobile and Agricultural lndustries Corporalion, Bombay 1961 12 S.T.C. 122. this Court said: But the courts in interpreting a taxing slatute will not be justilied in adding wr)rds lhereto so as to make out some presumed object of the Lr,gislature... lf the Legislature has laibd lo clarily its meaning by the use of aFrpropriate language, the benelit thereof must go to the taxpayer. ll is scttled law that in case of doubl. that interpretation of a taxing statute which is beneficial to the taxpayer must be adopted.

8. On behalf of the respondent-State. learned Counsel drew our aflention to the judgment of this Court in fLe_C_qL[eller of Estate Duty. G Kalrl!1a!_I_rikam.lalJhal judgment also is lo the same elfect and does not a,/ail the respondents. lt said: Tre sweep of the Sections which will be presenty set out must, therefore I I I I I I I ! I i be informed by the ranguage actuafly used by the regisrature. or course, if the words cannot appry to any recondite species of property, courts cannot supply new logos or invenl unnatural sense to words to fulfil the unexpressed and unstated wishes of the legislature. 9. We are in no doubt whatever, therefore, that it is only land which is actuarry in use for an indusrriar purpose as defined in the said Act that can be assessed to non-agricurturar assessment at the rate specified for rand used for induslrial purposes. The wider meaning given to the word'used,in the judgment under chailenge is untenabre. Having regard to the fact thar the said Act is a taxing statute, no courl is iustified in imputing to the legislature an intention that it has not clearly expressed in the language it has employed." The state Legislature taking note of the law declared by the Apex court in Federation of A.P. chambers'case and with a view to putting in place comprehensive legislation, repealed Act 14 of 1963 and enacted Act 3 of 2006. Therefore, in this background, it is the case of 2nd respondent that the payment under Act 3 of 2006 is one time payment ol tax for conversion ol agricultural land for non-agricullural purpose, instead of levy and demand ol NALA Tax for every Fasili under Act 14 of 1963. The amount levied and collected under Act 3 of 2006 is by its very nature a tax levied by the State for conversion of agricultural land for non-agricultural purpose and no parallel can be drawn with the development charges paid to development authority under Act 1 of 1975 for institution of use or conversion of use. According to respondenl, Act 1 of 1 975 and Act 3 of 2006 administer diflerent situations and applications. lt is further stated that the State Government after taking note of lack of coordination between the different authorities who grant permissions under Acl 1 of 1975 issued note Nos.84(1Srt/&E-D-3t2007l,, (371N&E-D3tzoo7) and (735n/&E-D3/2007) dated

28.05.2007 to insist upon production of Noc/clearance from R.D.o under Act 3 of 2006. while considering sanction of layout approvals, the instant note calls upon the Vice- chairmen of Urban Development Authorities to insist upon production of Noc from authority (RDO) under Act 3 of 2006. The respondents pray for dismissal of the writ petitions. The learned counsel for appellants/petitioners contencj that Act 1 of 1g75 and Act 3 of 2006 cover the same subject matter and these Acts are overlapping. Therefore, in application of these enactments, the well established principles of interpretation as laid down in ALLAHABAD BANK V. cANARA BANKIZI, SURESH NANDA V. cBTAI, ASHOK MARKETING LIMITED V. PUNJAB NATTONAL BANKHand KSL & INDUSTRIES LIMITED V. ARTHANT THREADS LtMtTEDIfl are to be apptied and compliance with the requirements under Act 1 of 1975, satisfies the requirement of due conversion ol agricultural land for any of the non-agricultural purposes. The insistence upon clearance/Noc trom R.D.o is ultra vires and in support ol this proposition, the irppellants place reliance on SUBASH KUMAR LOHADE VS THE SPECIAL OFFICER, MUNIC]PAL CORPORATION OF HYDERABADIqI. It iS contended that the import of both the Acts is one and the same. The words 'conversion' and 'change ol lard use' used in the:;e enactments are used in the same sense. The learred counsel lurlher contend that the non obstante clause in the special enactment viz., Act 1 of 1975 has overriding eflect on lhe provisions of Act 3 of 2006 and thattheoperatiorr of Actl of l9T5excludesfirstlytheoperationof provisionsof Act3of 2006 in a notified urban area and secondly the conversion tax under Act 3 of 2006 amounts to dout,le taxation. The learned counsel further contend that even assuming without admittinll that land conversion tax is payable, the scheme ol Act 3 of 2006 provides lo( ex F,ost faclo payment of conversion lax for use of land for non-agricultural purposes. There'ore, the Urban Development Authorities cannot call upon applicants to obtain NOC frorr the Revenue Department. The ,:ondition precedent imposed by the Urban Developnrent Authority for consideration of layout approval application is arbitrary and without jurisdiction. The learned counsel appearing for the appellanls place strong reliance upon S{)ction 2(e), (f) (o) and (p). Sections 3, 6. 7. 13, 27,28 and 29 of Act 1 ol 1975 to contend thatthe area covered by Act 1 of 1975 is comprehensively governed by Act 1 ol 1975 and rrone else. The appellants rely upon the regulations issued by the Development Authority from time to time under Ar:t 1 of 1975 to illustrate their contention that the fee paid under Act 1 ol 1975 is in fact a conversion fee. By virtue of issuance of a notification under Section 7 ol Act 3 of 2006, the lands used lor such notified purposes are exempted from Act 3 of 2006 and there s no need to pay land conversion lax to Government. The appellants in support of lheir conlention under Section 7 of Act 3 of 2006 rely upon the notilication issued by the 1 sl respondent for institution of use or any development use under Act I ol

1975. ln other v/ords, the submission of learned counsel lor the appellants is that once a notilication und3r Act 1 of 1975 is issued permitting change of land use, application ol Act 3 of 2006 is excluded to such notilied land. It is finally contr:nded that the Noc cannot be insisted upon from Revenue Department and the requirement is without authority and amounts to arbitrary exercise ol power by the 1st respondent. On the other-hand, learned Advocates General appearing lor Urban Development Authorities in respective stales contend that the challenge to impugned letter is unfounded anc thal a reading of provisions ol Act 1 of 1975 and/or Act 3 of 200G by appellants is completely erroneous and liable lo be re.jected in limini. According to the learned Advocates General, imposition ol conversion of land tax on land used for non-agricultural purpose should not be confused with either development charges paid to an authority or change of land use permined lhrough a notification under Act 1 of 1975 which is for a different purpose and has nothing to do with the payment of land conversion tax under Acl 3 ot 2006. According to them, the appellants are completely ignoring the legislative history of Act t4 of 1963 which was repealed through Act 3 of 2006 and the scope and ambit ol re-enactment viz., Act 3 ol 2006. The obiect and purposes of Act 1 ol 1g75 and/or Act 3 of 2006 are distinct, operate in ditferent spheres and there is no overlapping of subject malter as contended by the appellants. slrong reliance on the stalement o, obiects and reasons, scope and levy under Act 1 4 of 1 963 and Act 3 of 2006 has been placed to contend that under Act '14 of 1 963 NALA Tax was levied lor a Fasli (year) upon usage of any land for non-agricultural purpose. The Government was levying and demanding NALA tax for use of the total extent of agricultural land for non- agricultural purpose and however levy of NALA Tax under Act 14 of 1963 on accounl ol ratio of Federation ol A.P. chambers'case was restricted to the exact extent of land used by an occupier lor non-agricultural purpose. The Government, with a view to addressing the basis ot adjudication in 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 ol conversion tax lor use of agricultural land for non-agricultural purpose. According to the respondents, the levy and demand ot conversion tax under Act 3 of 2006 is different and distinct from development charges paid under section 14 rcad with Sections 27 to 29 of Act 1 ol 1975. According to the learned counsel, the contention raised on Section 7 of Act 3 of 2006 is misconceived and liable to be rejected in limini, for section 7 deals with statutory exemption granted to a few classes of lands specified in the Section and grant further exemption to a class of lands lrom the application of Act 3 of 2006. Therefore, according to the counsel, the notification, even if issued, under Act 1 of 1975 has no application to claim exemption from either payment of conversion Tax or applicability of provisions of Act 3 of 2006. Further, il the basis of appellants' case namely that lhe Acts are cdvering the same subiect and overlapping, is rejecled and no exception for levy and demand of conversion tax vis-i-vis development charges can be taken. The learned Advocate General for the state of relangana has relied upon decisions in Firm Ram Krishna Ramnath Agarwal v. secretary, Municipal committee, Kamptee E, M/s.Jain Bros. v. the Union of lndiaE, Kewal Krishan puri v. state of Punjabg, Govind saran Ganga saran v. commissioner or sares Tar@ and Municipal councir, Kota, Rajasthan v. Delhi cloth & General Mi[s co. Ltd., Delh#!. The learned Advocates Generat pray for dismissal of the appeals/petitions. ln order to appreciate the contentions raised by the parties, it would be necessary to refer to history, scope/object and salient features of Acts 14 of 1963, 3 of 2006 irnd 1 of 1975. The salient features are examined with the assistance ol basic aids of interpretation of statutes and to determine whether these enactments operate in the same sphere or not. The repeal ol Act 14 ol 1963 and enactment of Act 3 of 2006: As already noted, the levy of tax on agricultural land for non-agricultural use was inlroduced through Act 14 of 1963. The Tahsildar u rder Section 3 of Act 14 of 1963 was authorized lo levy non-agricultural land tax for use ,rf agricultural land lor non-agricultural purpose. As per Section 3 of Act 14 of 1963, NALA tax was levied lor different purposes at the rates specified in the schedule appended to the Act. The assessmenl ol trx is for Fasli (year) and NALA Tax was levied lor lhe use of agricultural land for residential, commercial and industrial purpose, as the case may be. Section 4 of Act 14 ol 1963 empowered lhe Tahsildar to determine and demand NALA tax for non- agricultural use of agricultural land. ln Federation of A.P. Chambers' case, the Apex Court has laid down the principle of law that NALA :ax can be levied only on the land actually used for any of the purposes specilied in schedule ol Act 1 4 o, 1 963, but not on entire land owned by an occupier. The sequel ol Federation ol A.P.Chambers' case illustratively stated that the assessee who possesses an extent of Ac.10-00 for running an industry is required lo pay NALA Tax only for the extent of land actually used for non-agricultural purpose viz.. Buildings, Factcry ancillary facilities and not on vacant land held as adjunct or olherwise to the main purcose of establishment by the occupier. The principle of law laid down in Federation of A.P.Chambers'case was narrowed down the application of Act 14 ol 1963 in recovering NALA Tax. Therefore, Act 14 ol 1963 was repealed through Act 3 o,

2006. The Stalementof Objects and Reasons of Act 3 of 2006 reads thus" l'he Andhra Pradesh Non-Agricultural Land Assessment Act, 1963 provides for the levy of assessment ol lands used for Non-agricultural purposes. The "Non-agricultural land" as delined under Section 2(g) ot the Act, nreans Land other than the land used exclusively for the purpose ol agriculture but does not include the land used exclusively for (i) Cattle sheds ( l) hay ricks. Section 3 of the Act. is the charging section according to the areas e nd rites indicated in lhe Schedule therein. The Schedule sets out the rates cf assessment per Sqr. Mtr. of land used per Fasli year (a) for industrial 6,urpose;(b) lor commercial purpose; and (c) Ior any other Non-agricultural F'urpose including residential purpose. The High Court of A.P. in S.V.Cements Ltd., vs. R.D.O., Nandyal and ('thers (1993 (2) ALT 32) interpreted the word "used" recurring in Section 3 :tnd the Schedule of the said Act means not only actually used but also rneans any land meant to be used or set apart from being used. On appeal, the Apex Court in the Federation of A.p. Chamber of (lommerce and lndustry and others vs. State of A.p., (C.A.No.1039/2000) on 04.08.2000 held that it is only the land which is actually in use for an industrial purpose as detined in the Act that can be assessed to non- agricultural assessmenl at the rate specilied for land used for lndustrial purposes. lf the Supreme Courl orders are implemented by charging NALA, the demand will go down to 75% of the total demand. The Government have evolved New lndustrial policy and orders were issued exempting all lndustrial units lrom levy o{ NALA with elfect from 01 -04-2000 to 31 -3-2005. Accordingly, Government have decided to abolish NALA by repealing The AMhra Pradesh Non-Agricultural Land Assessment Act, 1963 in ils present ,orm and to introduce levy in lumpsum at the rate of 10% (Ten percent) of lhe basic value of the land in arrears as may be lixed by the Government lrom time lo time as one time measure at the time of conversion by undertaking a specific legislation. This Bill seeks to give etfect to the above decision." The statement of oblects and reasons clearly shows that the enactment of Act 3 of 2006 is to regulale the conversion of agricultural land to non-agricultural purposes for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto The preamble of Act 3 ol 2006 provides lor repealing Act 14 of 1 963. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Guiarat v. Mirzapur Moti Kuresha Kassab Jamat and othersB laid down the inrerpretative utility ol statement of objects and reasons in construing a stalule. The relevant portion reads thus: "Reference to the Statement of Objects and Reasons is permissible for understanding the background, antecedent state of aflarrs in relation to the statute, and the evil which the statute has sought to remedy. The facts stated in the preamble and the Statement ot Object:; and Reasons appended to any legislation are evidence ol the legislative ludgment. They indicate the thought process of the elected representatives of the people and their cognizance of the prevalent state of affairs, impelling them to enact the law.' A statute is the highest constitutional formulation of law. The means by which the Supreme Legislature, after lullest deliberations, expresses its final will. A clear distinction exists between a repeal simipliciter and a repeal and re- enactment by the legislature. Likewise, the legal position as to where there is a repeal of an enactment and simultaneous re-enactment and wtrether the re-enacled law manilests an intention incompatible with or contrary to the provisions ot the repealed provisions of the re-enacted enactment is examined. Therefore, this Court while interpreting the scope and ambit etc., of Act 3 of 2006 must bear in mind the law subsisting when Act 3 of 2006 has come into operation. ll is desirable and imperative lo go through the then existing legislation, if any, and obtain its clear understanding vis-d-vis Act 3 of 2006 and the necessity for fresh declaration of law by the State Legislature. Thus viewed, Act 14 of 1963 has been in lorce 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 Chambers's case has restricted the levy and demand of NALA tax only lo the aclual use o, agricultural land for non-agricultural purpose by an assessee under the Act \ - and not on the .otal agricultural land held by an occupier for non-agricultural purpose. Therefore, the :itate Legislature with a view to removing the difficulty caused by the decision in Federation of A.P.chambers, repealed Act 14 of 1963 and enacted Act 3 ol 2006. lt is nct the case of appellants that betvveen 1964 and 2006 NALA tax was not levied by the Ta hasildar for the urban properties notified under Acl 1 of 1 975. 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 1 of 1975 was made ,or grant of perrnission to the Urban Development Authority. The preamble and the short title ol the Act clearly suggest that Act 3 of 2006 is repealing Act 1 4 ol I 963 and the Act 3 of 2006 is intended to regulate the conversion ol agricultural land to non-agricultural purposes. Act 3 of 2006 regulates conversion ol agricultural lanrj for non-agricultural purposes and levy of tax for such conversion of land is provided for under Act 3 of 2006. Section 2(a) of Act 3 of 2006 defines agriculture as raising any croll or garden produce; or orchards or pastures or hayricks and Section 2(b) defines agricultural land as land used for agriculture. Under Section 2(c), the word conversion means change ol land use from agricultural to non-agricultural purposes. Non-agricullur:rl land means - land other than the agricultural land. section 3 imposes restriction on t;onversion of agricultural land to non-agricultural purpose without prior permission ol t re compelent authority. The procedure for obtaining permission is covered by section 4, and the Act authorizes grant of regulirtion of conversion of land and one time levy and collection of non- agricultural land tax. From the scheme ol the Act, it is evident that penalty is provided for default in paynlenl of NALA lax and collection of land conversion tax with fine at 507. of NALA tax. Every owner or occupier of agriculture land is under obligation to pay conversion tax al the rate of g7o lor use of agricultural land for non-agricultural purposes. The scheme ol Act 3 ol 2006 firstly is a one time imposition of tax,-while regulating the conversion of ;rgricullural land to rron-agricultural purposes. The tax is payable to the Government and the object and intendment ol Act 3 ol 2006 lhus is regulation of land conversion and imposition of tax for such land conversion. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants conlend that with the issuance of a notilicatio r under section 12 of Act 1 of I g7s, exemption under Section 7 of Act 3 ol 200(i is available to the notified lands under Act 1 ol 1975, and no land conversion ta). need be paid under Act 3 of 2006. ln other words, it is contende(l that with the issuance of a notification by the Govemment for change ol development rlse, there is automatic conversion of agricultural land for non-agricultural use and theroby the applicability of Act 3 of 2006 is exempted. ln support of this submission. s,rme of the appellants rely upon land use notification issued under Seclion 7 ol Act 1 of 1975 or particular change of land use permitted through individual notifications issued under Section 1 2 of Act 1 of 1975. According to the learned.counsel for appellants, the preparation and finalization of master plan and zonal development plan under Act 1 of 1975 or issuance of a notification under seclion 12 of Act 1 of 1 975, by legal fiction deemed change of land use is occasioned and again the levy of tax for conversion of land use is unavailable. The submission does not stand to the scrutiny ol literal interpretation of Section 7 ol Act 3 of 2006. Section 7 of Act 3 of 2006 read as follows: Acl not to applv to cerlain landsi Nothing in this Act shail appty to- (a) tands owned by the State Governmenl : (b) Lands owned by a local authority and used lor any communal purposes so long as the land is not used for commercial purposes ; (c) Lands used for religious or charitable purposes ; (d) Lands used by owner for household industries involving traditional occupatron. not exceeding one acre ; (e) Lands used lor such other purposes as nray be notified by the Goverrrrnent lrorn time to time: (f) Lands used for Aquaculture. Dairy and Poultry.l{ Section 2 (d) (xi)delines notification thus: xi)'Notification means a notification published in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette: and the word 'Notilied' shall be construed accordingly The literal construction of Section 7 of Act 3 of 2006 exempts lands owned by the State Government; the local authority; lands used for communal purposes and so long as the lands are not used for commercial purposes; land used for religious or charitable purposes; land used by owner of household industry involving traditional occupation not exceeding one acre. A few inbuilt or statutory exemplions are provided in the Seclion dealing with exemption. Through clause (e) ol Section 7, power is conferred on the Government to exclude application of Act 3 of 2006 for lands used for such other purposes, as may be notified by the Government lrom lime to lime. Section 7 (e) of Act 3 of 2006 confers power on lhe Government to consider issuance of a noti,ication under Section 7 of Act 3 of 2006, including a category of agricultural land from operation of Acl 3 of 2006. Stated in simple expression, the Government may under Section 7 ol Act 3 of 2006 issue a notification exempting a category or class of lands from the application ol Act 3 of 2006. ln other words, the master plan or zonal development plan/individual change of user notifications issued under Act 1 of 1975, will not exempt the applicability of Act 3 of 2005. Therefore, the notification even, if any, issued under Act 1 of 1975, cannot be eilher contended or by necessary implication understood as excluding application of Act 3 of 2006. For the above reasons, the contention urged under by relying on Section 7 (e) of Act 3 of 2006 is without merit and is accordingly rejected. The scooe and ambit of the Andhra Pradesh Urban Areas (Develooment) Act1975(Act1 of1975): The learred counsel lor appellants by placing reliance upon the scheme of Act 1 of 1975 contends that lirstly the comprehensive developmenl in a notified area under Act 1 of 1975 is takon care by Act 1 of 1975 and with the issuance of notirication underthis Act, the change of user is effected and no further conversion of agricullure land can be envisaged or pe ymenl of land conversion tax would arise. On the contrary, the learned Advocates Genr-'ral appearing for respondents conlend that these two enactments have distinct purposes and that levy of land conversion tax under Act 3 ol 2006 is by way of lax at the time cf conversion ol agriculture land for non-agriculture purposes and levy of development fe -' under Act 1 of 1975 is for development use of notified land, particularly at the time of dcvelopment of property in the notified area. The development fee is paid to the urban Development Authorrty, which is vested with the responsibility of overall development ol urban area. we propose to examine the salient features of Act 1 ol 1975 and answer these issues. The pre;rmble ol Act 1 of 1975 states that Act I of lg75 is enacted to provide for the development of urban areas ,n the state of Andhra pradesh according to plan and for matlers an<:illary thereto. From the preamble, it is evident that Act 1 of 1975 is inlended to provide for development ol nolilied urban areas according to the master plan and for matters ancillary thereto. We prrlceed to interpret the relevanl provisions of Act 1 of 1975 by reading the language of statute as it is. The words employed in the statute are given natural and ordinary mean ng and that by harrnoniously construing all the important sections of the Act. the schema of the Act is deterrnined. Scclion 2 (e): '<leveloprnettl' with its grammalical variations means the cililyrrrq crrt ol ali ot arry ol the uJorks contemplated in a master plan or zonal ticveloprncrrt plarr rclcned to in lhis Acl, and lhe carrying out of building, errqinec;irri1. nritritr({ or otll'}r opcrations in, on. over or under land. or lhe fllaking ul ariy rnaicrial charrge in any building or land and includes 1 p1log9l1 lrntr-trl: [-rovirlr:r, tlr,rl lor llt. t]urpo:ies of ltris /\ct. tlre following operatiotrs or uses of larrrJ .s rilil not be rlr:e,lrr:d ro involve developmerrt of the land tlrat is to say- Itr,r c,-}f r.y'ill0 ou: of atry tcmporary works tor the maintenance, irnpr()rrr rnilnt or oltrr:r alleration of any building. being works which do not ttratr:ria l,; a{fecl lha +yt{'r,r.1l appearance Ot the builcling; I he ,:ar r yiflq ()Ut lry a lo{:al autltority ol any temporary works required lor the nla!ntrlnance or rn.lprolrernenr of a road, or works carried out on land rvillrilr tira trotrrrcl;rricls ol lh,) toad; T116 c3sr-yi1s11 out hy il local arrthority or statutory undertaking ol any lemg:or rry lvotks ft't tho putpose ol inspecting, repairing or renewing any sewers rnains, pipes, cab.les or other apparatus. including the breaking opcn ol any slreel or olher land for that purpose; 'ihc use of arry buiidi0g or olher land within the cartilage put.pose inci(lenlal to lhe onioynrenl of tltc dwellinq ltouse as such; and l'he ilse of rrry larrcl ,or llre purpose of agriculture, gardening or {orcsrr'iirrcltrdirrrr ;rf forestatiorr) and the use lor arry purpose spccified in this cla.lsr of anv l)rrilciirxt occullied togL.lller with land so used.. (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) Section 2 (e) defines development as carrying out all or any works contemplated in (l) master plan, (ll) zonal development plan referred in Act 1 of 1975 and development means carrying out building, engineering, mining or other operations in, on, over or under land. Development means making any material change in any building or land and redevelopmenl. Through proviso, the following acts are nol trealed as development for the purposes of the Act. a) Temporary works which do not materially affect lhe appearance of the building b) Carrying out the works within the road alignment. c) Repairs to sewers and drains etc. 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 activities though satisfy the meaning ol development, still are excluded from the meaning of development. Such exclusion is provided to avoid undue hardship in carrying out a few activities in a notified area. Section 2(f):'development area' means any urban area or group of urbart areas declared to be a developmenl area under sub-section (1) of Section 13. Section 2 (0 defines development area as urban arera or group of urban areas declared under Section 13(1 ) ol Act 1 of 1 975. Development area, therelore, consists ol any urban area or group ol urban areas declared to be a deverlopment area under sub-seclion (1) of Section 13. Section 2(o!:'urban area' meansi (i) (ii) the area comprised vvithin the iurisdiction ol the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad or of any Municipality constituled uoder the Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1965 and also any such area itr the vicioity as thii Government may, having regard to lhe exlent of, arrd tlre scope' lor, tlte urbanizalion of that area or other relevant consider;rtions, speci{y in lhis behall, by notifir,ation; and such other area a5 the Government may, by notification, declare to be an urban area, which in the opinion of the Govertrmetrl, is likely to l)e urbanized. Section 2 (o) covers Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad or any area covered by any municipality constituted under lhe Andhra Pradesh Municipalities 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 notification declare any arca as urban area which has the potential of urbanization. SDg$SE-zlp): 'zone' means any one ol the tlivisions inlo which the devetopment area may be divided for the purposes of developlnent ltllder this Act' Section 2 (p) means zones as one of the divisions of development area divided for the purpose ,:f development uncler this Act. The divisions of zones are - residential, commercial, indlrslrial etc. Section 6: Civic survey o{ and Masler Plan lor development area:- (t) The Authorily shall. as sooll ali tnay bc. carry oul a civic survey of and prepare a Master Plarr lor lhe dovel<lptne[t area concerned. {2} The Masler Pl.'ilr shall. (a) define the various zones irrto wttich tlre development area may be divided for tlre purtnses <l[ develo$nlr,nt an(l indicate the manner irr which tlre land in cach zonc i:; lrropo.rr:rl to l]{} uscd (oither after carryirrg out development thercon or otltDruJisci arrd the sl.t{tes l)y which any such development shall be carried oul; arld (b) ser r,: as , i)fisic pa' ter rr o{ f rante-rvork within which lhe zonal developrrr€nl plarrs ol thif vari{)us zoncs may be ptepared. (3) Tlre Master Plarr rni:y lrrovide tor itny olhet matter which is necessary for lhe l-rroper develop{n,-.nt of tlre development atea. Seclion 7: Zonal d+vcloprn.Irl pla,ls:- (t) Sitnullaneously with the preparation of Masler Plan r.r as si:o.t a:i nray lre thoreafter the Authorily shall proceed lvith tllc f tci)at,,lion ()[ z'irt. (li]vf'loFrnonl pian for cach of thc zones into which thc ilovcl(.1)nlcnt ar!.il t'n:ty bi-. drvitlcd. (2) A zottrl (levtloprlli'nl 1,1;11, 111,1'rr.' (a) cotlln,n ;r sile pl;rrr prrrl l;rrr{l u:ir'lrlan lor the development Of lfie zone and sholv lhe al)pro{inlailr l(}Cati.)ns arri, extcnts o, land uses proposed in the zotles for sttcll pr.trlrr5,.r: ;tS toarJs. trcltrsing. SChOOIS, recreation, hoSpitals, itldt,shy, br.rsttrIss. rrr.1r!'.11, l)ut)lic works and ulilities, public buildings, public anrl Priv;rlt: clott ,,o;r,;Cs ,lrrd olhcr Catcgories Ot public arrd priVate uses; (b) spccrtr llle sl.lxl;ri({ri rrl lr,rntrlltlrorr rlerrsity arrd btrilding densityt ir) slrou, r),,ety at*;r irr llril ,'oilrr wlriclr nray, in the opinion of the Aulhofity. be required < r decl.rrerl {or (1..'vclopnletrt or redevelopment; and (d) irr particular. contain prirvisions regardirrg all or any of the lollowing nlaltcr s. ilarrcly, (i) the divisiorr of ony siie [1t(] pl()ts tor lhe erection of buildings; (ii) tlre al otrrrcilt or resi_'rvirliorr ol larrcls for roads, open spaces, gardens, recreatior c;lottttrls. :.,.:llfl{ris. ntarkCtF arrd other public purpoSeS; Sectir'n 6 obligates conduct of civil survey and preparation of master plan lor developmenl a rea i.e. urban area or group ol urban areas declared'under Section 13(1) of Act 1 of 1 975. The zonal development area takes care ol various development plans envisaged in nraster plan. Seclion I3: Dr:r>laralioil of tlevr.rk:prrr(rrrt areas and developmelrl ol land in tltoso arrrl other areas:- (t) A:; soon ;is nray be aller lhe commencement of this Act. !../here Ciov()rntnellt cilrrs.rder it ilocessary l.o do so for purposes of proper developrrrerrt ol ariy rrrbarr ,1,1a or qroup ol urban areas in this State they may, by notiti{:ntion. dccla[r-. sricil urban <trea ot.group of urban areas to be a developnrcrrt area for tlt,l lrlrrpos{:s of lllis Act. (2) Tlte Governrnenl rnay. by rrotilication and in accordance with such rules as may be nracle in lhis br-'hall- (a) exclurle fronr a develol)rn.]nt area any area comprised therein; or (tr) incluc e in developrnorrt atea any other area, (3) save as olherwisc provi(red i, flris Acl. lho Arrilrority shall not undertake or carry rut arry devr:loJ:ririrrl ol lan{l irr any area wlrich is nol a development area. (4) After lhe corrrrrrcrrcCrrr.:rrt of ilri1: Act, no clevelopmerrt of lancl wilhin the developmenl area shatl be underlaken or carried out by any person or body including any department of the Government, unless permission for such development has been obtained in writing from the Authority in accordance with the provisions o, this Act. (5) After the coming into operation of any of the plans in any area withirr the development area, no development shall be undertaketr o[ carriecl out in that area unless such developmenl is also in accordance with such plans. (6) Notwittrstanding anything in any other law or the provisions contaifle(l in sub-sections (a) and (5), developmerrl of any larrd undcrtaken in accordarrco with any law by a.ry person or body including any department of tlle Goverrrrnent or any local aulhority before the cornmencement o{ tltis Acl, tney be completed withoul compliance with the requirernents of those sub- sections. Provided that such developrnent of land shall be conrpleted within one year from lhe date of commencement o, llris Act; unless the Atrthority for' good and sufficient reasons, exlends the said period of otre year tor suclr lurther period as it deems tit. (7) Alter the commencement of this Act, no developrnent of land shall be undertaken ot cartied out by any person or body including any departmenl of the Government in suclt area adioining.to or in the vicirrity of tlrc dcvelopmcrrt area, as may be notifi()d by the Government uflless approval of or sanctiorr fol' such developmettt hits been obtained in writing fronr ihe local authority conccrnoxl, in accordirnce with the provisiorrs of relevant law relaling lhercto, incluclirrg tlrc law relaling to town planning tor the time being in lorce and the rtrles ancl regulatiotts made thereutrcler Provicled tlrat the local authorily concerned may, in consultation wilh ilre Authority, ,rame or suitably amend its regulations in their application to suclr area adjoining to or in the vicinity ol the development area. 8Xa) Where any part of the area adioining to or ilr the vicitlity of lh{-' developmeol arear as notified under suFsection (7), is in the process of rapid development or is likely to develop in the near future, lhe local aulhority concerned shall, eilher on lhe direction of the Government or otr the aclvice of the Authority, prepare in consuttalion with the Authority, town plaruriilg scheme under the law relating to Town Planning, ,or the time being in lorr:e, and publish lhe schemes as required under that law and submit them to ttre Government for sanction. (b) Any development in the area covered by such tol.n planning schemes shall be in accorclance with the provisions of lhe schemes as sarrctiolrccl by the Government. @ Where in regard lo the matters specified in sub-section(7) and o{ this sub- section there is a diflerence of opinion between the local authorily cotrcefired and the Aulhority, the malte( shall be relerred to the Government, whose decision thereon shall be final. (9) ln this section, and in Sections 14, 16 and 41 lhe expression 'Department of the Government' meaos any department, organization or public uoderlaking ol the State Govenlrnenl or o[ the Central Governmerrl. 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 arca or group ol urban areas to be a developmenl anealor the purpose ol this Act and declaration of urban area to be a development area for the purpose of this Act. The Section mandates that development shall be strictly in accordance with the development notified under the Act. A person constructing a building or developing land in a developmenl area applies to the authorig for permission to construct a building or develop land in accordance with the development plan. Sectiorr 1,[: Application lor pr,rmissiorr:- (1) Every person or body includirrg a Departme:rl ol lhe Gorrernntc,lt (lesiring to oblain the permission relerred to in Section l3 shall rnake an applicai-ion in writing to the Authority in such forrn and containinq stlch pat [rculars i,r respect of lhe development to which the applicaliorr relatc:i .'ls nl.rv [,o delornrirrcd by rcqtrlations. (2) Evcry ; pplicatioo untlfl liub-secl.ion { I } shall be accornpanied by such lee as ntay [:e tucs;critred atrd r <.:r:pv o{ tho title dc'etl o{ the land duly altested by a Gazette(l Of{icer of lltc (ir:rvt'rrttrtnilt toqetller with an urban land ceiling cleilra.rce rerlifical: if llu erlr:u( <i{ llr'' lattd excecds tlre ceiling lirnit or an af{idavit de:larirrg llral tho lolai oxl')nl ol land iry such holder. or his or her spouse atl( untnarricd childrerr rlocs nol cxcecd tlle ceiling lirnil. l)rovi<Ied tlral no silclr lile :;hall be rrecessary in the case of an application made by a Depattrnent o{ llre Govelnmenl, or any local authority. (3) On r:ccipt ol an applic;rtinn lor permission trnder sub-s€ction (1) the Authority. :r{ter makirtcl suclr Onquiry as il cotrsider necessary, in relation to arry mailer specilied itt clatrse ,cl) of stth-section (2) of Section 7, or in relation lo aqy otlrer maller. shall by rrrricr ilr trtiling eillrer qranl the permission, sulliect to \rlcll conili{ion'-i. if r:tv. i:; Irr-lY [](r:;pe'ciIied in the order Or refuse lo qrilill sLtclt 1l{:t tni'."';rrln (4) Whcre 5:errnissrilrr is r;'[ ll:ed. lll.] 11rounds oI such refusal shall be recor<{ed {r r.vrilin(l irl{J i'oiliiIrtl!ii,li-!]l to tlte applica[l in thc manner dCter |lrirrt-'r I l)y I C(lulirlr{ri r..i. {5) lf. lvitlr n nirrely (l,rvs il{loi tlrr r{r{:ert)[ of arry agrplication made under this section {or pr:rilrissrrin. (}i (rr,rni it}ir}r{ii,ition or lurthcr itrformation required under rule.; or (egul"ition:i. lllr,r'rtltli,Iiii iras ilcithcr granted nor relused its petrnissiorr. strr-'lt l.rctnti::siitn rlr.rii lii' ii,':'ril(}d lo harre been granted, arrd the applicant nlay l)roci)(:d to c,'iliV irui {lr,r devclopment but not so as to COnll'alvel!,' .ttly l{ tltl pttl'ut:;iirtts rrl !lrt r Ar:t Or any rtrleS Or regulations made ttndcr this 11ct- (6) The rutllority shall ker:p a rertister rif applications for permission under tlris sectiorr in such lorrn as ntay trc (lclfl'mil|ed lry rcgulations. (7) Thesaidreqistersltall (:ontairtsUcltllartictrlarsirrcludinginformationaslo the manne r in witiclt al)pli':ali'trrs for pt'rttrr55i6rp havo been dealt with, aS may be dctern-irred lly rnrlttlali(){1 i irrld :ih.!ll lre available for inspection by any nrember cl lhc ixtlrlit: dut,irtl spi:t;tlli:ll irottrs orr paynrenl o, suclr fee, not exceeditrq {ivo.;rs lnay br} {lft.{nrillecl hv ri'c1ttl:ttions. (8) Wl-rere pernrissiott is tt.{.tst'rl rtn(li'r lllis sectiolr the applicanl or any person cl: irrritt<1 throtrlh hint ;h;rll tl(rt tr{'pnlillgd lo qet refund of the lee paid otl tlrc apl'licali(rll tor lrL'tnlissi(tlt. Under Section 14, eve(y person desiring to obtain lhe permission rererred to in Section 13 shall make an applicalion to the authority and the application contains such particulars in r-.spect of the development to which the application relates, as may be determined by the regulations. Section 14 (2) provides for payment of lee as may be prescribed an(i Section 14(3) provides for enquiry of application received under sub- section (1) of S;ection 14 and the enquiry lor the purpose of sub-section (3) is in respect ot matters sper;ified in clause (d) of sub-section (2) of Section 7. Therefore, the person intending lo ortain permission has to state details of developmenl and the development prescribed by regulations and obtain permission for executing development as per development plan. Scctiorr 1l: Llsc o, the land a,rd builtiirrris irr contravention of plansi After the cotninq info op,'raiiorr of atttr 61 the Pl.r:rs irr a zone, no person shall use or permit to be used arry land or building in lhat zone othcrwise than itr conformity with such Plarr: Provided that it slrall be lawful to continue to use upon suclr terms and conditions as may b€ determined by regutations made irr this behall, arry land or building for lhe purpose for wlrich, and to the extent lo wtrich, it is being used on the date on which strch plan comes into force," Likewise, Section t5 prohibits use of land and buildings in a notified development area in contravention of the zonal development plan and also prohibits the authorities from granting permission lor development except in accordance with the zonal development plan. Seclion 27: Levy of the development charges:- (1) Subiect to the provisions o, this Act and the rules made thereunder, the Authority shall levy charges (hereinaller called the development charges) on the institution or (sic. of) Use or change of use of land or building or develolrmenl ol any larrd or building for which permission is required under lhis Act in the whole area or any part ol the developnrenl arca wilhin the maximum rate specifred irr Section 28. Providcd that the rrlos o{ developmenl charges may be cliflercrtt fol difrerent parts ol the developrneot area and for diftererrt uses: Provided furlher that ttle previous sanctiorr o{ the Governrnent has been obtaincd for tlre rates of tevy. (2) Where the Authority has delermined to levy development charges for the first time or al a ,reyJ rite, il shall forthwith publish a rrotilication specilyiilg the rales of levy ol develol',ment charges. (3)The developnrcnt charges shall be leviable on any person who institutes or clrarges any srrclr rrst's, underlakes or carries out any such clevelopmenl. (4) Notwithstandiilg arrytlring coiltained in sub-sections (1) and (2). ilo developmenl charqes shall be levied orr institution of use or o( change of use or development ol, any land or building vesled in or under the control or. possession o, the Central or the State Government or of any local authorily. Under Section 27, lhe authority is empowered to levy development charges on the institution of use as per the zonal development plan; lor charges lor change ol use of land or building, development of any land or building for which permission is required under Act 1 of 1975. The development charges payable under this Seclion are for institution of use; change of use of land or building or development of any building or area for which a permission is required. From the nature of levy under Section 27, it is discernible that the levy is a charge payable for undertaking developmenl as per the notified zonal development plan to Urban Development Authority. Section 28: Rates ol Oevelopmenti (1)(a) For the purpose of assessing the development charges, the use of land and building shall be classified under the following calegories: (i)lndustrial; (ii) Commercial; (iii) Residential; (iv) Agricultura!; and (v) Miscellaneous. (b) ln classilying the use ol land and building under any of the categories mentioned in clause (a), the predominant 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 oi buildingi (a) in the c,rse of development of land, at a rale to be prescribed per hectare lor that are:t. (b) in the (:ase of development of building, at a rate to be prescribed per square metre of lloor area lor that area; (Provided that such rates oI development charges shall not exceed rupees three hundred per square meter in the case of development of land and rupees on(! hundred and twenty five per square meter in the case ol development ol building). Provided further that where land appurtenant to a building is used for any purpose independent of the building, development charge may be levied separately j'or the building and the land." The develc,pment charges are payable according to the broad classification stated in Section 28 of the Act. Section 29 provides for assessment and recovery of development charges by the authority from the applicant developing a property. Before corrcluding the scope and the ambit of various aspects namely long title, preamble, defin tions, enacting clause or formula. operattve and principal provisions and administrative p,rovisions ol Act 1 of 1 975, we deern it appropriate lo refer to the Urban Development l,uthority Rules. 19/7. lllustratively stated. the rates ol development charges under ljection 28 are as lollows: For Land ln erstwhile Municipal Corporalion Hyderabad merged in Grealer Hyderabad Municipal Corooralion In erstwhile l2 Municipalities merged in Grealer Hyderabad Municipal Corporation For institut on of use or chan;e of use For l3uilt up area Other Municipalities & Gram Panchayats Grealer Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Outside Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporalion a(ea b. Vacanl lo Commercial c. Vacanl :o lndustrial d. Vacanl to Miscellaneous ll. Change of land use a- Recrealronal to Residenlral b. Recrealional to Commercial c. Recrea:ional to lndustnal d. Recrealional to Miscellaneous e. Agricultural/Conseruation or Green Belt lo Residential ) xxx Xxxx 75 75 100 100 50 60 30 60 30 60 60 40 125 125 125 r 0'0 50 60 30 30 200 225 200 200 100 150 100 100 50 100 45 100 60 60 60 100 60 50 60 60 150 r00 50 75 45 From tlre above, it is clear that a person interested in development of a land/plot/build ng is required to pay the above development charges to the authority under Act 1 or 1975. The levy of development charges is lor institution ol use i.e., the notified use ir the zonal development plan, conversion fee for change of development commercial or as the ""t"'"1.1*,"t::::.'*"-"tH|il residential t" t"t";::;gory. rn"r"tore, the main use from residentiatto use trom recrearion to residentiat' ;;;""ordeveoPmen;ff :il"T.'Jffii }n#:::f il:'"',1'::i ".tjil:11;lltl"t rI;" ror matters *""11., or 1e75 as an enactmentintended 197s tudher reintorces the scope and obiect' ^" ; r-ot rszs detines a::"'"5: ro remove ditticurties in to, pr"nn"o deve,opment ']nJ activitles. ar:^::oved rom ,t-""] p.rio", ", w,h ,he :fr*: ::i: :;ffT::;" il:: :::::i::l;':1.J::""; 1 or 197s, u t"* o"r"ropment o' ****, ","1#1"';".g",ho sectons 13, 14 and 15 of Act 1 ot 1975 "n primarily concerned with devetopment ol "urb*' ,"n area' in accordance with master charges are paid tor deveropment i**l i::'- :::H ",l'[ towards development attributabte developer ot uuiloinlg;land [; i:[ t**r,^TJil: ::.1: charges o*** ';;, lee as etc'' as the case may be' but not a conv but not a conversion "on'"no"j"'l"."1ll"ll"tn"",not"'''' derines '" '::'::"sidered view' Act I "l "'u .",, "il;Jii I ;":f - :: ;ffi ::ill, ,"n0, is required to pay devetopment ,n" urban Development Authority tor rnasivencase'it ''':;:.";;;;*"ran' provided'^ li"j]:::t:: lfl,l,f ;'ush a norrricarron use enables the appticant to take l"uaop*"ntp;:ffiI:1[: *""1"":^|:lnoui notitication u ot larrd lrom agriculture n"t 1 or 1e75 purpose Therelore, ffi";; consrruction plan by tnt, or a building or developmenll;;" dev er opment, ." J;i,i.un "," ", ", preparation ot zonal devetopment under sections 14 and 27 ot Act t undertaki ns 0","1r""* "s under secrion 13 or section 15' such *t,:ji',il :":;;" on the apprication to notilied *"",;;;; under secton 7 ot the Act' Thereafter' the Act is not aftracted to such develoPment'" trom any view Point cannot be teated as to non-agriculture Purpose' ot a developer' change up deveropmentcontrarv From the scheme ot Act 3 ot 2006' we are ol lhe view :;;;l:'ffi ;:: **:":::'::i: ll'ilii*}'ii; x:',"".:#::: :J::: Act 1 ot 1975 by a developer ot buildingAano to"ll,"' namely the land conversion ;;;"u"rop,."nt accordins to master ,'r.* DeveropmentJtl" Lllril." under Act 3 of 2006 Srlo ttts "-^^^-,,r" plan/zonal development plan are separate and dis' anddistinct. lnMunicipalCouncil'Kota'Raiasthan'scase'whileconsideringtheimpactot name of a levy, the Apex Court held thus: "whenever a challenge is made to the revy ot tax, its varidity may have to be mainry delermined with reference to the regisrative competence or power ro revy the same and in adjurlging this issue rhe nature and character of the tax has to be inevitabry determined at the threshord. I: is equaily axiomatic that once rhe regisrature concerned ras been herd to possess the power to revy the tax. the motive with which the lax is imposed become immaterial and irrelevant and the fact that a wrong reason for exercising the power has tleen given arso wourd nor in any manner de'ogate from the valdity o, the tax.Jn fflls JuffunOur qub Manufacrur')rs' Associa tion v. The Union of rndia and Another, ArR (1g70) sc 1589 this c:ourt whire dearing with a chailenge to the levy of rubber cess under section 12 r2) of the Rubber Act, 1g47 as amended in r960 .bserved that the tax in the narure cf excise duty does not cease to be one such merery because the stage ol levy and coilection has been as a matter or regisrative poricy shifred by actuaily providing ior its levy and collection lrom the users ol rubber, so long as the character o'the duty as excise duty is not rost anri the incidence of tax remained io be on the r)roduction or manufacture of goods. Likewise, once the regisrature is found to porisess the required registative competence ro enact the raw imposing the tax, the rimi.s of that competence cannot be judged further by the form or manner in which that rower is exercised. rn (Morris) Levenlhar and others v. David Jones. Ltd'' AIR (1930) Pc 129, the question arose as to the power of the regisrature to impose 'BriJge Tax" when the power to regisrate was reary in respect of ,tax land'. lt was held therein as tollows: "The appell:rnts' contention that though direcily imposed by the legislature, :he bridge lax is nol ,a land tax, was supporled by argumenl founded ;n parlicular orr two manifesl facts. The bridge tax croes nor exrend ro rand generaily throughout rrew South wares, but lo a rimited area comprising rhe city of Sydney and certain specified shires, and the purpose or the tax is not that ot providing the public reverrue for the common purposes of lhe state but or providing funds for a particular sr;heme of betterment. No authority was vouched ror the proposrtion that an impost laid by stature upon property within a defined area. or upon specified classes of property, or upon specified classes of persons. is not within the true significanc€ of the rerm a tax. Nor so far as appears has il ever been successrury contended :hal revenue raised by statutory imposts ,or specific purposes is not taxation" Similarly, the contention of appeilants that the conversion tax virtuaily amounts to double taxation on the same subject is misconceived and thar the revy of rand conversion tax is by the Government and deveropment fee by the Urban Deveropment Authority' ln Radhakisan Rathi v. Additionar corlectorE, the.Apex court whire considering the comperence of different authorities to impose tax on rhe same sub,ect matter held thus: ln the right rf the aforesaid rerevant provisions or the panchayats Act we have to consider th'r question posed for our decision. rt is obvious that a cinema thealre situated within the rerritoriar rimits oI locar municiparity or a corporataon can be taxed by the concerned municiparity in exercise of its powers under the rerevant rr/unicipar Acl. But if the same theatre is arso siruated within a brock dury consrituted under the Panchayats Ac[ it wourd Iail within the territoriar rimits of the concerned Janapada Panchayat ':onsrituted for lhat brock as raid down by sect,on 103 read with section t04 of ihe F anchayats Act. once that happens ttre concerneo .lanapada panchayat would obvicusly be entitled lo invoke ils taxation powers underSection 157 for the area within [s jurisdiction and ir a theatre is situatcd wirhin that area then obviousry section 157 wourd get attracted for imposing the twin types of taxes mentioned by section 157 which are permissibre to be imposed by the Janapada panchayal. rt is now well settled that lhe same subiect matter can be covered by taxation nets imposed by different competent taxing authorities and there will be no double taxalion involved in such case. we may refer in this connection ro the decision of this Court in the case of [1990] 3 SCC 645. Para 30 of the report at page 654 lays dorvn as under. "30. Where more lhan one legislalive aulhority, such as the Slate legislature and a local or municipal body possess lhe power to levy a lax, there is nothing in the Constitution to prevent the same person or property being subiect to both the State and municipal taxation or the same legisrature exercising ils power twice lor drfferent purposes. rn Avinder Sinoh v. State of punjab lhe State of punjab in Aprit 1977 required the various municipar bodies in the state to impose tax on the sare of rndian made foreign liquor @Re. 1 per bottle w.e.f. May ZO, 1977. The municipal authorities having failed to take action pursuant to the directive the state of Punjab directry issued a Notification under section 9o(5) of the punjab Municipal corporation Act, r976 and simirar provision ot rhe Municipar Act, 1911. The petitioner chaflenged the constitutionar varidity of the said sratutes and the revy on rhe, inrer aria, ground of doubre taxation. Krishna lyer, J. speaking for the Court hetd: (SCC p 144, para 4l "There is nothing in Article 265 of the Constitution from which one can spin out the Constitutional vice call,-.d double taxation (Bad economics may be good law and vice versa). Dealing with a somewhat similar argument, the Bombay High Court gave short shrift to it in Western lndia Theatres. Some undeserving contenlions die hard, rather survive after cleath. The only epitaph we may inscribe is: Rest in peace and don,t be reborn! lf one the same subject matter the legislature chooses to levy tax twice over there is no inherent invalidity in the llscal adventure save where other prohibitions exist." All the citations reried upon by the rearned Advocates Generar appearing for the States of Andhra Pradesh and rerangana are not considered, for the view we have independently taken on the scope and ambit of these two enactments. Having considered the provisions ot both the enactments independently and after interpreting the sections in the manner indicated above and by rerying upon the principles of law laid down by Apex court in KSL & lndustries Ltd's case; we are of the view that the submissions of learned counsel appearing for the appella nts are de void ol any merits and are accordingly re.iected. Hence, it is held that either the scope and the ambit or payment of land conversion tax and the Development fee under Act 3 of 2006 and Act 1 of 1975 are separate and distinct. The question is answered accordingly. The further contention ol learned counsel for the appellants that the Urban Development Authority cannot insist upon production of Noc from Revenue Divisional officer under Act 3 of 2006 by reference to the penalties provided under section 6 of Act 3 of 2006, is equally unfounded. May be that under section 6 of Act 3 of 2006, penatty for recovery of land conversion tiax with fine is provided for. That does not mean that the Government with a view to synchronizing the functioning of all the departments and prevent loss of revenue cannot call upon the Urban Development Authority to insist production of Noc from the Revenue Divisional officer under Act 3 of 2006. The Urban F Development Atrthority construing strictly gets jurisdiction to entertain an application for which conversion tax is paid under Act 3 of 2006 and the Noc can be justified by this reason as well. The insislence at best can be treated a concomitant and the aulhorities can certainly insist upon Noc from applicant for processing the application made under Section 14 of A<:t 1 of I975. For the view we have taken on questions (i)(ii) and (iii). no exception could be found against the impugned conrmon order dated 2g.o4.zo1o. For the reasons stated above, lhe appeals are without merit and accordingly dismissed. As we have confirmed the common order dated 2g.o4.zo1o, we are inclined to dispose of writ p,etitions as follows: a) lt shall be competent for the Urban Development Authorities or the Local Authorities, as the case may be, to insist on submission of clearance/permission under the 2006 Act as a condition precedenl for releasing of layouts, and b) the lanc has been put to non-agricultural use belore the 2006 Act came ir to force, such clearance/permission shall not.be insisted. c) Conversion ol land into Non-agricultural use under the provisions of Act 3 of 2006 is necessary even if the land is covered by Master Plan and sanction of layout by the Development Authority under the provisions ol Act I ol 1975. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, also stand disposed No cos's. DILIP B.BHOSALE, ACJ S.V.BHATT, J Date:28.08.2015 E aooo) 6 scc si;o @ n," aooo sc , rgs B o,, ,oou ,c , o,o @ (, rro) 4 scc / 06 E ,*r) 9 SCC 7;3 @ etn ,nrs o" gsz EA," ,ruo sc Fage 11 @ (,runl 3 scc:r1 r E(,rro) 1 sccr.16 @ t saslrrppl s lc 2os u @ @ 1roo,1 3 scc 654 1roor1, scc 534 1,ssst 4 scc 309