The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI D.JAGAN MOHAN REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.1: cP FOR MCPL ADMN-URBAN DEV Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI V.NARASIMHA GOUD, SC FOR HMDA The Court made the following: ORDER IION'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN .1 -tt ORDER: WRIT PETITION No.1856 1 0F 2017 Heard N4r" D. Jagan mohan Reddy, leamed counsel for the petitioner and I\{r. V. Narasimha Goud, leamed Standing' Counsel for HMDA appearing on behalf of respondent No'2'

2. CASEOF THE PETITIONER: i) He is t.he absolute owner and possessor of agrictrltural land to an extent of A.cs.3.36 guntas in Survey Nos'102 (P), 103 ('P)' 105 (P)' 115 and 116, sltuated at Thattiannaram Village, Hayathragar Mandal' a Rangareddy District. ii) As per HMDA Master Plan, the aforesaid land falls in ConservationZone.Therefore,hehassubmittedanapplicationdated

17.07.2012 to respondent No.2 with a request to change the land from conservation u.se zone to residential zone' iii) Pursuant to the same, proposals were sent to respondent No'1 vide letter daterl 05.03.2013. On receipt of the same, respondent No'1 vide its letter rlated 07.08.2013 directed respondent No.2 to submit a draft variatiorr and schedule of boundaries to the Govemment for taking 1 2 KI,J W.P. No.l856l of20l7 further action. ,g: " Accordingly, respondent No.2 submitted draft variarion t. for modifi cation, of plan. iv) After following the due procedure, such as publishing a Notice in English and Telugu Newspapers in respect of the subject land calling for the objections and suggestions etc. and the petitioner making payment for such publication etc., respondent No.2 directed the petitioner to deposit an amount of Rs.7,89,131/- towards development charges and the same was deposited to the account of respondent No.2 through various challans which was confirmed by respondent N6'.2 vide its letter dated 13.09.2014. v) On such deposit, respondent No.1 issued G.O.Ms. No.27, dated a

09.01.2015 for change of land use from conservation use zone to residential use zone in respect of the subject lands. After completion of entire process, again respondent No.2 vide its letter dated 17.ll.2016 directed the petitioner to remit the difference/balance development charges of Rs.15,78,260/- as per G.O.Ms.No.223, MA & LID, dated

30.08.2016. The petitioner is not liable to pay such amount vi) Therefore, he has submitted a representation dated 19.12.2016 to respondent No.2 to consider the same. The same was rejected vide its letter dated 08.03.2017 stating that respondent No.l issued a Memo J KL,J \V P No 18561 of20l7 .+ dated2l.04.20t1i on change of land has been relaxed in respect of orders issuti ,;de G.Cr.Ms.No.27, dated 09'01'2015 subject to collection of difference of conversion charges from the applicant as per enhanced rate' The said memo ' s applicable only to the lands wherein cases are pending before the Gove:nment and second condition is that where the amount of development charges payable has not been communicated by HMDA/GFMCrMunicipalitylGram Panchayat and no such relax condition was imposed while issuing G'O'Ms'No'27' Now' after issuance of saict GO and after lapse of one and half year' iespondent No.2 issued a letter for payment of difference conversion t;harges is bad l in law.

3. CONTE NTIONOF RESPONDENT No.2. H]\IDA: i) As per the Master Plan, the subject land is earmarked as Conservation Use Zone ii) On receipt of application from the petitioner, vide letter dated

05.03.2013, the proposal was considered by its office and informed the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs'1,63,456l- toward'q publication charges. Thr: same was paid by him' Thereafter' respondent No'2 informed the 1lt:titioner to pay an amount of Rs'7,39,131/- a.s per the rate 4 KL,J W P No.l t56l ot20t7 of change of land use (CLU) charges in force vlrle G.O.Ms.No.439 MA & UD, dated 13.06.2007. .4:" u ..- iii) The petitioner paid the conversion charges and the same was informed to respondent .No. l. Thereafter, respondent No. I issued orders for change of land use vide G.o.Ms.No.27, dated 09.01.2005 with a condition that the applicant has to fulfill any other conditions as may be imposed by the competent authority. Then the Govemment issued Memo, d,ated,21.04.2015 keeping in abeyance of all the change of land use orders issued from 01.12.2024 until further orders. ' ' ir) Respondent No.2 received letter dated, 24.10.2016 from respondent No.l relaxing the change of land use in respect of orders issued vide G.O.Ms.No.27 subject to collection of difference of conversion charges from the petitioner as per the enhanced rates. Therefore, the petitioner was informed to pay the difference amount of conversion charges as per G.o.Ms.No.223, dated 30.0g.2016. pursuant to the same, respondent No. 1 informed the same to the petition er vide letter dated 17.11-2016 to pay an amount of Rs.r5,7g,260l- within thirty (30) days from the date ofreceipt ofletter, to avoid 10% ofinterest. v) The request made by the petitioner vide letter dated, 17.lI.2016 cannot be considered and, therefore, he is liable to pay the same. 7 5 KL,J 'l P. No.l856l of2017

4. ANALYS IS AND FINDIN GS OF THE COTJRT |4,* i) In vievr of the aforesaid rival submissions' the main contention ofleamedcottnselforthepetitioneristhatthepetitionerhasdeposited an amount of R.s,7,89,131/- within time as directed by respondent No'2 pursuant to the G.O.Ms.No.27, dated 09'01'2015 and' therefure' he is not liabletopayl.heamountofRs'l5,78,260/-towardsdifference/balance development charges as per G.O'Ms'No'223, dated 30'08 2016' Even otherwise, the said G.o.Ms.No.223, dated 30.08.2016 is applicable only to all the penclirrg cases where the final orders have not been issued by the State Govemment and where the amount of developrnent charges payable has not been communicated by respondent No'2' a ii) Whereas, it is contended by respondent No'2 that though G.O.Ms.No.2ll was issued on 09.01.2015, the change of land use orders issued from Ol l2.2ll4 were kept in abeyance by the Government vide Memo No.4945/ll/2015-1, dated 2l'04'2015 and' thereafter' the Government issued G.o.Ms.No.223, dated 30.08.2016, revising the rates of developmeml charges. Pursuant to the said G.o. dated 30.08.2016' the Govemment requested respondent No'2 to collect l'he difference (balance) arnount of conversion charges from the petitioner vide letter No.5465/1 ll2}l3, dated 24.10.2016. ,On receipt of the said letter, (- 6 KL,I WP No 1856r of20r 7 amount respondent No.2 informed the petitioner to remit the said amount of Ps.tfuN,zeot $ithin a period of one month vide letter dated 17.11.2016. Therefore, the petitioner is liable to pay the aforesaid Without challenging the letter dated 24.10.2016, the peritioner challenged the letter dated 17.11.2016 of respondent No.2. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief, much less the relief sought in the present writ petition. iii) As discussed above, it is not in dispute that the petitioner had deposited the amount of fu.7,g9,131/_ within time as airectea Uy respondent No.2 pursuant to the G.o.Ms.No.27, dated 09.0r.2015. At the same time, it has to be seen that vide Memo No.itSqS/trtZOlS_t, dated 21.04.2015, the Govemment kept in abeyance the change of land use orders issued from 01.12.2014. In view of the same, the orders passed, vide G.O.Ms.No.27, dated 09.01.2015 were also kept in abeyance. Thereaftel, vide G.O.Ms.No.223, dated 30.0g.2016, the Govemment revised the rates of development charges. Accordingly, the Govemment addressed a letter dated 24.10.2016 to respondent No.2 requesting to collect the difference (balance) amount of conversion charges as per G.O.Ms.No.223, dated 30.0g.2016 from the petitioner. Pursuant to the same, respondent No.2 addressed a letter dated ) =a.'??e'ei€ 7 KL,J $/.I']. No.l856l of20l? '1

17.11.2016 to the petitioner requesting him to pay an amount of .+" <.*r' one month towards difference/balance Rs.15,78,260l- wtthrn development charges, so as to avoid l0olo interest as per IIMDA Act' 2008. Thereafl.er. the petitioner gave a representation dated 19'12'2016 stating that the said G.o.Ms.No.223, dated 30.08.2016 is only applicable to all the pending cases wherein the final orders have not been passed for change of land use and where development charges payable' but not communicated lly respondent No'2 and finally requested respondent No.2 to drop the demand of the aforesaid amount' iv) The said request made by the petitioner vide his rt-presentation dated 19.12.2016 was not considered by respondent N'o'Z' fn" said fact was informedto the petitioner videletter dated 08'03'2017 and requested the petitioner to pay the said amount with interest 10o% interest' Challenging lhe letter dated 17'11'2016 of respondent No'2' the petitioner filect r.he present writ petition' v) lt is apt to note that the said letter was addressed by respondent No.2 pursuanl 1o the letter dated 24'10'2016, requesting the petitioner to pay the aforersaid difference of amount' The petitioner herein has not challenged thr: said letter dated 24'10'2016' The challenge in this writ petition is to the letter dated 17'll'2016, which is consequential to the I I \ \ 8 KL,J W.P No 1856t of20t ? letter dated 24.10-2016. Therefore, without chailenging the retter dated .1 \a .,'

24.10.'2616., the petitioner cannot challenge the consequential letter dated

17.11.2016 as held by the Hon,ble Supreme Court in Amarjeet Singh v. Devi Ratanr. Thus, the present writ petition is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed.

5. CONCL USION: IN THE RESULT, the present writ petition is dismissed. However, in the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to , costs. As a seQuel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the writ petition shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// Sd/- MOHD. ISMAIL ANT REGISTRAR ASS ECTION OFFICER To '1 . One CC to SRI D.JAGAN MOHAN REDDY, Advocate [OPUC] 2. One CC to SRI V.NARASIMHAGOUD, SC'FOR HMDA [OPUC] 3. Two CCs to GP FOR MCPL ADMN-URBAN DEV, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad. [OUTJ

4. Two CD Copies \ PSK. s '. (2olo) I scc 417 HIGH COURT v KL,J .4"' l* -. oltffo:oe rc312025 ORDER WP.No.18561 of 2017 /. ) c o 0 I , ,1{I€ lJ^ :i\H 206 Ft t I o E Sgt""l rO DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS 4 W