Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
M/S Thri Sandhya Enterprises Rep., vs State Of Ap on 3 September, 2020
Author: M.Ganga Rao
Bench: M.Ganga Rao
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) :PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.GANGA RAO IA No. 1 OF 2018 IN WP NO: 3693 OF 2018 Between: M/s Thri Sandhya Enterprises Rep. by its Managing Partner Sri Nalla Satya Raju, S/o.late Venkata Rao, Aged about 53 years, R/o Plot No.288, Sector-V, Near Sivaji Park Backside Gate, MVP Colony, Visakhapatnam ..Petitioner(s) (Petitioner in WP 3693 OF 2018 on the file of High Court) AND .. 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by the Principal Secretary, Municipal caministration and Urban Development Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, untur 2. Visakhapatnam-Kakinada Petroleum, Chemical and Petro-chemical Investment Region Special Development Authority (VKPCPIR-SDA) Rep., by its Vice Chairman, 9th Floor, Udyog Bhavan Complex, Siripuram Junciton, Visakhapantam. 3. The Director, Visakhapatnam-Kakinada Petroleum, Chemical & Petro- chemical Investment Region Special Development Authority (VKPCPIR- SDA), 9th Floor, Udyog Bhavan Complex, Siripuram Junciton, Visakhapantam ...Respondent(s) (Respondents in-do-) 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 direct the respondent authorities to release the layout of the petitioner without insisting for CLU charges by suspending the proceedings in Rc.No.1036/2012/L5, dated 17.1.2018 of the 2nd respondent authority, pending disposal of WP 3693 of 2018, on the file of the High Court. The petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Petition and the affidavit filed in support thereof and the order of the High Court dated 06-02-2018 & 20.08.2020 made in W.P.No.3693 of 2018 and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Venkateswara Rao Gudapati, Advocate for the Petitioner, GP for Municipal Administration and Urban Development for the Respondent No.1 and of Sri K.V.Simhadri, standing counsel appearing for respondents 2 and 3, the Court made the following ORDER:
This Court, on 06.02.2018, ordered notice before admission and posted the matter on 07.03.2018 to enable the respondents to file counter. Again, on 07.03.2018, at request of learned standing counsel for the respondents Z and 3 to file appearance and counter, posted on 28.03.2018. This Court, on 28.03.2018, ordered Rule nisi and posted the matter on 04.02.2019. The matter again posted to 25.02.2019 for counter of respondents 2 and 3 finally. On 20.08.2020, Sri K.V.Simhadri, learned standing counsel for respondents 2 and 3, seeks time to file counter. Hence, this Court, on 20.08.2020, is constrained to direct the respondents 2 and 3 to file counter finally on or before 03.09.2020, failing which the 3 respondent is directed to appear in person before this Court along with all connected records on 03.09.2020 to assist the Court for final adjudication of the matter. As per the records, the order of this Court dated 20.08.2020 is communicated to the respondents 2 and 3, but none appeared before this Court today.
The grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner-firm has purchased land to an extent of Ac.10.37 cents situated in various survey numbers of Thadi Village, Parawada Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, for the purpose of developing the land into plots, which is within the Visakhapatnam Urban Agglomeration. He filed an application dated 29.02.2012 to the respondent authorities for approval of the layout. He also paid the conversion fee, layout processing fee and development charges to the Government. However, he submitted a representation dated 17.03.2017, stating that the conversion of land from agricultural land to non-agricultural land has been paid to the Government and the said land is already earmarked as residential area, and hence the question of payment of Conversion of Land Usage (CLU) charges would not arise. The 2™ respondent vide proceedings dated 28.09.2016 and 18.03.2017 has recommended to the 1°' respondent authority for release of the layout in favour of petitioner and another. In spite of order dated 27.11.2017 passed by this Court in W.P.No.35675 of 2017, the respondent authorities passed the order dated 17.01.2018, rejecting the claim of the petitioner stating that the lands in Thadi Village, Parawada Mandal are declared as agricultural lands and that the draft master plan prepared by the 2"? respondent is not approved, hence the land usage amount has to be paid by the petitioner and directed him to pay an amount of Rs.42,18,170/- for change of land usage. Being aggrieved by the said action, this writ petition is filed.
« Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that when the respondent authorities have submitted the proposal for approval of M/s.Sai Priya Constructions Private Limited and the petitioner, the plan was approved and forwarded to the 1° respondent authority, wherein it is clearly mentioned that the site of M/s.Sai Priya Constructions Private Limited is falling under the residential zone of draft master plan and the petitioner's land also shown that the land falls under residential zone. However, the layout has been released in respect of M/s.Sai Priya Constructions Private Limited, but the respondent authorities have not approved the petitioner's plan and issued the impugned proceedings, which is illegal and arbitrary.
In the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner and non-submission of counters by the respondents as stated supra, this Court prima facie satisfied that the respondent authorities have been approving the layout as per the draft master plan prepared by the 2nd respondent authority in respect of other persons, but even though the case of the petitioner is similar to that of others whose layouts were released, they have not been releasing the layout of the petitioner, which is discriminatory, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Accordingly, there shall be an interim direction as prayed for.
SD/- MSSURYANADHA REDDY IITRUE COPY// To,
1. The Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department, State of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur
2. The Vice Chairman, Visakhapatnam-Kakinada Petroleum, Chemical and Petro- chemical Investment Region Special Development Authority (VKPCPIR-SDA) 9th Floor, Udyog Bhavan Complex, Siripuram Junciton, Visakhapantam.
3. The Director, Visakhapatnam-Kakinada Petroleum, Chemical & Petro-chemical Investment Region Special Development Authority (VKPCPIR-SDA), 9th Floor, Udyog Bhavan Complex, Siripuram Junciton, Visakhapantam(1 to 3 by RPAD) One CC to Sri Venkateswara Rao Gudapati, Advocate [OPUC] Two CCs to GP for Municipal Administration and Urban Development, High Court Of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] One CC to Sri Sri K.V.Simhadri, standing counsel [OPUC] . One spare copy ak No@ SRL
- "HGH COURT MGRJ DATED:03/09/2020 ORDER I.A.NO.1 OF 2018 IN WP.No.3693 of 2018 INTERIM DIRECTION SEM RES SON I. hy Bh | 4 5 SEP DOF,
2)