IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF MARCH, TWO THOUSAND NINE PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.2607 of 2004 Between: Mrs. Shahwar ..... Petitioner AND The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, Tankbund, Hyderabad & another. .....Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri Posani Venkateswarlu Counsel for the respondents: Sri R. Radhakrishna Reddy SC for GHMC This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.2607 of 2004 ORDER:- This writ petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus to set aside letter dated 09.01.2004 issued by respondent No.2. Heard Sri Posani Venkateswarlu, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri R. Radhakrishna Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. The petitioner applied for building permission to the respondents to construct a building on his plot situated in an approved layout. Respondent No.2, vide his letter dated 09.01.2004, sent intimation to the petitioner wherein he was required to pay a sum of Rs.53,134/-, which comprises Rs.7,634/- towards development charges, Rs.30,000/- towards betterment charges, Rs.10,000/- towards external betterment charges and Rs.2,500/- towards sub-division charges. The petitioner assailed the demand of this amount except to the extent of sub-division charges on the main plea that the provisions of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (for short, ‘the Act’) and the Municipal Corporation Building Bye-laws, 1981 do not authorize the respondents to collect development/betterment charges in respect of the plots located in approved layouts. At the hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the betterment and development charges are collected by the respondents at the time of approval of the layout and that therefore there is no authority for the respondents to demand the said amounts once again. In the counter affidavit filed by the Assistant City Planner, Circle-I of respondent No.1, it is inter alia stated as under: “In reply to para No.4 of the affidavit, I submit that collection of building permit fee as per the provisions of Building Bye-laws is different. As per the provisions of Sections 388, 444, 463-A and 622 read with notification No.622/A/MCH/TPS/99, dated 30.03.1999 has modified as No.622/A/MCH/TPS/99, dated 30.09.1999, whereunder the Corporation has prescribed various fees to be collected for the purpose of granting sub-division/permission for construction of building. The allegation that except the permit fee, no other charges are liable to be paid by the petitioner is not correct. I submit that in addition to the collection of building permit fee at the time of granting layout, various provisions of the Act and notifications enables the Corporation to collect various charges including development charges, betterment charges, external betterment charges and sub- division charges even the plots are in the approved layout which is sub-divided.” At the hearing, the learned Standing Counsel has not placed reliance upon any provisions of the Act or notification, which enables the respondents to collect development and betterment charges in respect of the plots situated in approved layouts. The very purpose of lavying and collecting development and betterment charges is to provide amenities to the residential colonies. The said purpose having been served with the collection of development and betterment charges at the time of approval of the layouts, the question of the respondents once again collecting the said charges from individual plot owners in the guise of sub-division of the plot does not arise. Though the learned Standing Counsel sought to justify the collection on the ground that as the plot is sub-divided and a building is proposed to be constructed, the respondents have to provide amenities in respect of the sub-divided plot, I fail to see any merit in this contention because even if one plot is divided into two, the respondents are not required to spend additional amount in providing any amenity in respect of the sub-divided plot because admittedly in the entire layout area the amenities such as drainage and electric polls have already been provided. In this view of the matter, the demand towards development, betterment and external betterment charges cannot be sustained in law and is accordingly set aside. The petitioner shall pay the sub- division charges of Rs.2,500/- as demanded by the respondents in the impugned notice. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is allowed. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 20.03.2009 ES