SALEEMA G RATTANSEY Vs. HYDERABAD URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The case of the petitioner is that she along with husband is the owner of Ac.6.00 in S.No.219 of Yapral Village, Malkajgiri Mandal, Ranga Reddy District and when she made an application to the HUDA (1st respondent) under Section 14 of the A.P. Urban Areas (Development) Act 1975 (for short the Act) for permission to develop the said land, she was asked to pay Rs.24,010/- on or before 30.06.1995 as development charges under Section 27 and 29 of the Act along with necessary documents, and on her application time for payment was initially extended till 31.12.1995 and subsequently till 24-12-1996 and though she paid the amount of Rs.24,010/- demanded by the 1st respondent by way of banker cheque on 18-4-1996, well within the time extended, 1st respondent, through the letter dated 12-3-1996 asked her to pay Rs.2,40,019/- and Rs.5,000/- towards development charges and miscellaneous charges respectively on or before 22-04-1996 in view of the issuance of G.O.Ms.No.51 dated 5-2-1996 for which she sent a reply, and in spite of that reply, informing the 1st respondent that the said G.O.Ms.No.51 does not have retrospective operation, and since she made the application well before the issuance of the said G.O., she need pay the rates that prevailing earlier only respondents are not considering her application and so she filed this petition to declare that the demand for payment of development charges by the 1st respondent in pursuance of G.O.Ms.No.51 M.A. dated 5-2-1996, for consideration of her application, is illegal and without jurisdiction.

(2.) The case of the respondents, as disclosed from the counter affidavit filed by the Secretary of the 1st respondent, is that after the petitioner was directed to pay Rs.24,010/- towards development charges along with documents referred to therein she filed an application seeking extension of time for payment till the end of December, 1995 on the ground that CCCA No.211 of 1992 is pending in this Court between her vendor and the Mandal Educational Officer, and subsequently through her letter dated 25-12-1995 she sought further extension till 22-04-1996 for payment of the development charges, and accordingly time was extended. But in the meanwhile rates of development charges were enhanced through G.O.Ms.No.51, dated 5-2-1996, and since the application of the petitioner without payment of development charges cannot be considered as a valid application, in view of Section 14(2) of the Act read with the A.P. Urban Development Authority (Hyderabad) Rules, 1975, (for short the Rules) she was directed to pay Rs.2,40,019/- towards development charges for consideration of her application.

(3.) The main contention of Sri Soma Konda Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner is that in view of ratio in G. Pochaiah and another Vs. Govt of A.P. Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department and another (2000 (1) ALT 713) the date of application only is relevant to decide the quantum of development charges payable and since G.O.Ms.No.51 M.A. dated 5-2-1996 came into force long subsequent to the date of submission of the application of the petitioner and since petitioner was granted extension of time for payment of development charges till 22-4-1996, the coming into force of G.O.Ms.No.51 on 5-2-1996 has no relevance for deciding the development charges to be paid by the petitioner.