WP/39088/2013 of G.Murali Mohan Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Secretary, on 31 December 2013

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY

WRIT PETITION No.39088 of 2013

Date:31.12.2013

Between:G.Murali Mohan,S/o Venkateswara Rao Chowdary

..... Petitioner

And:

The Govt of AP, reptd by its Secretary,Municipal Administration and Urban Department,Hyderabad and two others

.....Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri P.Prabhakara RaoCounsel for the Respondents: AGP for Revenue The Court made the following:ORDER:

The repeated notices being issued by respondentNo.3 to the petitioner for payment of the purported fee forconversion of the agricultural land to non-agricultural useare assailed in this Writ Petition.

A perusal of the record shows that respondent No.3has issued notice in Rc.No.B474/2007, dated 10.01.2008,wherein he has informed the petitioner that he is liable topay conversion charges for putting the agricultural land tonon-agricultural use. A statement relating to thepetitioner’s alleged liability was enclosed to the saidnotice. As per the said statement, the petitioner is liableto pay a sum of Rs.55,71,000/- including the penalty of50%. On receipt of the said notice, the petitioner is stated to have given a reply, dated 12.05.2009, wherein he has,inter alia, informed respondent No.3 that as per themaster plan published by the Vijayawada, Guntur, Tenaliand Mangalagiri Urban Development Authority, theagricultural lands of the petitioner’s family have beenincluded in the industrial zone and that four years back,he and his family members have made an application toconvert the land from agricultural use to non-agriculturaluse. The petitioner has, therefore, requested respondentNo.3 to refrain from making any demand towards thepurported conversion fees. The petitioner alleged thatwithout taking note of the said reply, respondent No.2 hasissued another notice, dated 18.02.2010, to a similareffect. Even to this notice, the petitioner claimed to havesubmitted a detailed reply, dated 04.03.2010, denying hisliability. The petitioner filed a copy of the said reply, whichcontains endorsement of acknowledgment of the same on05.03.2010.

Undeterred by the stiff resistance put up by thepetitioner, respondent No.3 has issued a third notice,dated 09.06.2013, which is impugned in this Writ Petition.Even to this notice, the petitioner submitted a detailedreply, dated 27.06.2013, wherein he has referred to theearlier notices issued by respondent No.3 and his repliescontaining detailed reasons in support of his denial ofliability. As the petitioner apprehended initiation ofcoercive steps by respondent No.3, he has filed this WritPetition.

From the facts noted above, it is evident that thepetitioner has been strongly resisting the demand madeby respondent No.3 for payment of conversion fees. Hehas filed a copy of G.O.Ms.No.81, MunicipalAdministration and Urban Development (I2) Department,dated 21.02.2005, under which the draft ZonalDevelopment Plan of Nidamanuru zone area has been approved.

It is trite that if an agricultural land was included inthe master plan and the same was earmarked for non-agricultural use as on the date of coming into force of theAndhra Pradesh Agricultural Land (Conversion for Non-Agricultural Purposes) Act, 2006 (for short ‘the Act’), theowner of the land is not liable to pay the conversion feesirrespective of whether such lands were not physically putto non-agricultural use as on the date of commencementof the Act. What surprises this Court is the persistentdemands raised by respondent No.3 without addressingthe stand taken by the petitioner in his replies, referred toabove, that the land was already included in the masterplan showing them as “reserved for non-agriculturalpurpose”.

Respondent No.3 cannot enforce the purporteddemand on the petitioner, unless the competent authorityadjudicates on the objections of the petitioner and takesan appropriate decision.

Conclusion

For the above-mentioned reasons, respondent No.2is directed to consider the objections of the petitionerreferred to above, hold an enquiry after notice to thepetitioner, take an appropriate decision and communicatethe same to the petitioner. Till this process is completed,the respondents are restrained from enforcing thedemand for payment of the conversion fees.

The Writ Petition is, accordingly, allowed to theextent indicated above.

As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition,W.P.M.P.No.48558 of 2013 is disposed of as infructuous.

____________________________

JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNAREDDY

31[st] December, 2013DR