IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 21873 of 2003 Between: The Regional Manager APSRTC Warangal. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Prl. Secretary to Government of A.P. Municipal Administration & Urban Development Department Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad 2 The Commissioner Municipal Corporation, Warangal .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the second respondent in not repaying Rs. 4,22,310/- received towards developmental charges without jurisdiction as illegal, arbitrary , malafide and in violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the second respondent to refund Rs. 4,22,310/- forthwith. Counsel for the Petitioner: SMT.P.RAJANI REDDY (SC FOR APSRTC) Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN. & URBAN DEV. The Court made the following : ORDER : In this Writ Petition the Petitioner/APSRTC seeks writ o f Mandamus declaring the action of the second respondent in not repaying an amount of Rs.4,22,310/-, which was received towards Development Charges from the petitioner, as illegal and arbitrary and direct the respondents to refund the said amount. The Petitioner/Corporation purchased a piece of land admeasuring 3 acres 19 guntas 18 square yards in Sy.Nos.24, 25 and 26 of Shayampet Village and Sy.No.938 of Hanamkonda village from its earlier owner Alluri Murthy Raju and Company in the month of June, 1994. The said land was purchased by the Petitioner/Corporation to establish a Tyre Retreading Center at Hunter Road, Warangal. Initially, as the said land was notified for the use of agriculture, the petitioner sought conversion of land use from agriculture to industrial. In the said process, the petitioner also obtained No Objection Certificate, dated 13- 09-1995, from the Second Respondent/Municipal Corporation. The second respondent issued the No Objection Certificate to the petitioner for establishing Tyre Retreading Center subject to certain conditions, which include a condition of depositing an amount of Rs.4,22,310/- towards betterment charges. In addition to the same, the Petitioner also paid an amount of Rs.23,832/- on 16-06-1995 to the Kakatiya Urban Development Authority towards development charges payable under the provisions of the A.P. Urban Areas (Development) Act, 1975. The development charges were revised by the Government vide G.O.Ms.No.51, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department, dated 05-02-1996. On the ground that their application was earlier to revision of development charges notified in G.O.Ms.No.51, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department, dated 05-02-1996, when the revised development charges demanded by issuing notice, dated 06-03-1996, in Rc.No.C1/8/96/286 by the Vice-Chairman, Kakatiya Urban Development Authority, the petitioner approached this Court in W.P.No.10047 of 1996. The said Writ Petition was dismissed by judgment of this Court, dated 28-10-1997 and as against the same, the petitioner carried the matter in appeal by way of W.A.No.1445 of 1997, which is also ended in dismissal. When the respondents have issued Demand Notice for differential development charges as per the revised rates, this Writ Petition is filed seeking directions for refund of the amount received by the second respondent towards developmental charges on the ground that the second respondent is not empowered to collect the same pursuant to condition imposed in the No Objection Certificate, dated 13-09-1995. Counter-affidavit is filed by the Second Respondent/ Commissioner, Warangal Municipal Corporation. In the counter-affidavit, while generally denying the various allegations made by the petitioner, it is stated that the petitioner paid the development charges to the Urban Development Authority and the amount of Rs.4,22,310/-, which is collected from the petitioner, is towards betterment charges. It is further stated that as the second respondent is competent to collect the betterment charges, there is no basis for the writ petitioner to seek directions for refund of the said amount. Heard Smt.P.Rajani Reddy, learned standing counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel appearing for the Second Respondent/Municipality. In this case it is to be noted that the land, which was purchased by the petitioner, was an agricultural land, as such for using the said piece of land to establish a Tyre Retreading Center, conversion of land use must be ordered by the competent authority i.e., Urban Development Authority constituted under A.P. Urban Areas (Development) Act, 1975. After the said Act came into force, in view of the provisions under Chapter-IV of the Act, no development of land within the development area shall be undertaken or carried out by any person or body including any department of the Government, unless permission for such development has been obtained in writing from the authority in accordance with the provisions of the said Act. In that view of the matter, the development charges payable are as per the provisions of the A.P.Urban Areas (Development) Act, 1975. When the petitioner wanted to establish a Tyre Retreading Center, the Second Respondent/ Municipality issued No Objection Certificate, subject to payment of betterment charges to the tune of Rs.4,22,310/-. The Second Respondent/Municipality is empowered to such betterment charges in view of the provisions under Chapter XII-A of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955, particularly under Section 463-A of the Act. The said betterment charges, which are payable under Section 463-A of the Act are for the purpose of maintaining major arterial roads, lung spaces and other major civil infrastructure. The betterment charges, which are collected by the Second Respondent/Municipality are nothing to do with the development charges payable under the provisions of the A.P. Urban Areas (Development) Act, 1975. On the ground that as the petitioner has paid the charges to the second respondent, it is entitled for refund of the said amount cannot be accepted. The amount of Rs.4,22,310/-, which is collected by the second respondent, is towards betterment charges and as such, the revised development charges are payable by the petitioner to the Kakatiya Urban Development Authority, is not a ground to seek the refund of the amount paid to the second respondent towards betterment charges. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit in this Writ Petition for grant of directions for refund of the amount as prayed for. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. _____________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J. 22nd July, 2009. skmr