Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
The Automobile Technicians ... vs The State Of Ap on 5 May, 2022
Author: R Raghunandan Rao
Bench: R Raghunandan Rao
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATHI
MAIN CASE No.W.P.No.13653 & 13699 of 2022
PROCEEDING SHEET
Sl.No DATE Office
ORDER
Note 1 05.05.2022 RRR, J The petitioners are owners of various plots in industrial estates in the State. These petitioners have now approached this Court by way of the present writ petitions assailing the operation of G.O.Ms.No.5, dated 04.02.2022 and G.O.Ms.No.6 dated 04.02.2022.
The Government of A.P Is said to have issued these Government Orders for the purpose of implementing a coordinated growth policy for conversion of land use in respect of the lands situated in "Autonagars" which have been part of the towns in which they are situated. The scheme that is sought to be implemented is to convert the land use, of the lands situated in these Autonagars from industrial zone to multi-purpose use zone. For this purpose, the APIIC is to apply for such conversion to the concerned Urban Development Authority. Thereafter, the Urban Development Authority shall collect an impact fee of 50% of the market value of the land apart from the normal conversion charges. The Urban Development Authority would retain the conversion charges and remit the impact fee of 50% to M/s. APIIC. It is further stipulated that all applicants would have to pay this impact fee apart from other charges to obtain development permission as the land use has already been changed to multi-purpose use.
The petitioners have now approached this court with a complaint that M/s. APIIC is issuing notices to various plot owners raising objections to the usage of the land on various grounds and calling upon the owners of the plots to make an application under 2 G.O.Ms.No.5 or G.O.Ms.No.6 dated 04.02.2022 for change of land use by paying conversion charges and 50% impact fee failing which the owners are being threatened with coercive action.
Sri B. Adinarayana Rao, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri P. Durga Prasad, and Sri Javvaji Sarath Chandra, learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the levy of impact fee of 50% of the market value is expropriatory and in any event there is no justification for such an impact fee when such impact fee is not collected for conversion of land use for any lands situated outside the Autonagars.
Sri Ugra Narasimha, learned Standing Counsel for APIIC submits that in every deed of sale executed by APIIC, in favour of the owners of the plots, there is a stipulation that the said land would have to be used only for industrial purpose and cannot be used for any other purpose. He submits that on account of this condition, it would be permissible for the Government to levy an impact fee of 50% as change of land use would not be permissible unless APIIC agrees for such a change in use of the land.
Sri Kasa Jagan Mohan Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 9th respondent Capital Region Development Authority would submit that the petitioners are required to pay impact fee only when they file the applications and as such there can be no complaint against such an impact fee.
Having heard both sides, this Court is of the prima facie opinion that the levy of impact fee of 50% of the market value of the land for change of land use is highly expropriatory. This Court is also of the prima facie opinion that the differentiation between the lands situated in Autonagars and the lands situated in outside Authonagars for the purpose of collection of such impact fee may not answer the test of Article 14 3 of the Constitution.
In these circumstances, pending full-fledged adjudication of the issues raised in these writ petitions, there shall be an interim direction to the respondents not to take any coercive steps on any of the land owners in the Autonagars, on the ground of change in use of the land or change in line of activity of the owners of these plots, pending further orders.
Post on 16.06.2022 for counters.
_________ RRR, J Js.