G POCHAIAH Vs. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two writ petitions involve similar facts and warrant application of common principles of law. Having been heard together they are disposed of by this common judgment. The facts in Writ Petition No. 19078 of 1996 are recorded for the purpose of analysis of the issues involved.

(2.) The petitioner assails the letter No. 7938/MP-1/HUDA/95 dated 7-5-1996 of the Hyderabad Urban Development Authority calling upon him to remit an amount of Rs. 7,35,138/- towards the difference of development charges. The established and undisputed facts are as under:

(3.) Sri. Prabhakar Sripada, learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that an analysis of the statutory regime operating in the area including the provisions of the said G.O. would conclusively posit the position that the development charges existing as on the date of the application made under Section 12 of the Act are required to be paid and not development charges that exist as on the date a final notification is issued. This contention is supported by reliance on the provisions of Section 14(2) of the A.P.Urban Areas (Development) Act, 1975, which is in the following terms: