THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. ESWARAIAH W.P.No.6514 of 2001 ORDER: The petitioner-Geetha Apartments owners Association questions Memo No.56406/Asn.III(2)/99-2, dated 11-12-2000, deciding to implement the order issued in Government Memo, dated 14-11- 1997, for regularizing the transactions of the petitioner- association by charging the present market value for the land admeasuring 600 sq. yards in Plot No.53 situated at Marredpally, Secunderabad, without any concession, as is being given under G.O.Ms.No.698, dated 07-12- 1995. It is the case of the petitioner that the lands situated at West Marredpally, Secunderabad contonment were leased out to various persons by the Estate Officer with the sanction of the 4th respondent. It is stated that plot No.53, admeasuring 600 sq. yards, which is subject matter of the writ petition, was leased out to Smt.B.Veera Lakshmi in the year 1942 under a registered lease deed, dated 08-06-1942 for a period of thirty years and the lease is being renewable at the option of lessee for a total period of 90 years. The lease expired by 1972 and the lease was renewed under registered lease deed for a further period of 30 years commencing from 08-06-1972. Earlier to the renewed lease, the plot together with the house standing thereon with Municipal Nos.10-2-135 and 136 was allotted to the share of lessee, Smt.B.Veera Laxmi, under a partition deed, dated 14-12-1973 registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Secunderabad, on 12-02-1974. Subsequently, on application made by one B.Geeta, dated 18-02-1986, with the approval of the Estate Officer, Secunderabad, the aforesaid Veeralaxmi transferred the lease hold rights of the said plot in favour of her daughter-in-law Smt.B.Geetha under a transfer agreement, dated 04-06-1968, and the said Geetha entered into a partnership with developers for construction of Apartments under the name and style of M/s.Geetha Apartments and constructed residential flats after obtaining permission vide permit No.117/75, dated 10-05-1986 in File No.135/2/10/85-86. While so, the Government framed a scheme on the proposal of the Commissioner, Land Revenue, for conversion of lease hold lands into free hold in Secunderabad area and to give effect to the scheme issued in G.O.Ms.No.816, dated 09-08-1994, giving an option in respect of conversion of lease hold lands into free hold on collection of certain amounts in various categories as conversion charges. It is stated that in respect of residential leases for the area of 600 sq. yards, as per Annexure-II of the said G.O., the conversion charges are Rs.140/- per sq. yard and in case of commercial leases, as per Annexure III of the said G.O., the conversion charges are Rs.2,500/- per sq. yard. Annexure IV contains details as to levy of additional compounding fee for major violation, which is 20% of notified land value of the locality, in case of plots exceeding the area of 501 sq. yards. It is further stated that as per G.O.Ms.No.816, dated 09- 08-1994, the scheme is optional and valid for a period of one year from the date of issuance of the said order and the same was extended up to 30-06-1997 vide G.O.Ms.No.286, dated 09-04-1997 for conversion of the lease hold rights into free hold rights. It is further stated that during pendency of the said scheme for conversion of lease hold rights into free hold rights, the Government also issued G.O.Ms.No.698, dated 01-12-1998, with certain modifications and while extending the scheme for conversion of lease hold lands into free hold provided certain concessions in respect of long standing leases and proposed action to proceed against lease holders for major violation of conditions of lease like sale of lease lands, construction of flats without approval. The said G.O. prohibited registration of sale and other transactions of lease hold lands in Secunderabad area without prior permission of the competent authority. Further, the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad was directed not to grant any permission for building or alterations in respect of the leased premises in Secunderabad area in case of violation of lease conditions. It is further stated that after completion of the building, flats were sold in favour of the members of the petitioner’s Association and they were under bonafide impression that residential complex was purchased without any violation and having came to know about illegality of the construction of the complex, the flat owners formed into an association and got registered with registration No.3121/89, dated 20-12-1989. Subsequently, the petitioner- association made an application for conversion of lease hold land into free hold in terms of G.O.Ms.No.816, dated 09-08-1994. Pursuant to the said application, the Estate Officer is said to have inspected the building and submitted a report to the District Collector, who in turn keeping in view the aforesaid factual aspects recommended for conversion after collecting Rs.140/- per sq. yard towards conversion charges as shown in Annexure-II with 20% of notified land value by way of compounding fee for major violations as per Annexure IV of G.O.Ms.No.816, dated 09-08-1994. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner-association made a representation, dated 25-06-1997, but the Government vide its Memo, dated 14-11-1997 held that it is appropriate to regularise the transactions by charging the present market value. Thereupon, the petitioner-association made another representation, dated 14-11-1999 and the Government vide its impugned Memo, dated 11-12-2000, reiterated its earlier clarification vide its memo, dated 14-11-1997 for rejecting the request of the petitioner-association for regularization by collecting conversion charges and compounding fee as per G.O.Ms.No.816 in Annexure-II read with Annexure-IV. The said Memo is questioned in this writ petition. Learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submits that originally plot bearing No.53 admeasuring 500 sq. yards was leased out vide lease deed No.1411, dated 08-06-1942 in favour of one Baldae Jagadishwaraiah for dwelling purpose and not in favour of Smt.B.Varalaxmi as alleged by the petitioner. Subsequently, the said lease was renewed for the second term of 30 years vide L.D.No.4337, dated 21-12-1982 in favour of Smt.Varalaxmi and the said Varalaxmi executed a transfer agreement on 04-06- 1986 in favour of Smt.G.Geetha without any prior permission with the forged signature of Secretary Housing Board. It is stated that the Government issued orders in G.O.Ms.No.816, dated 09-08-1994 and G.O.Ms.No.698, dated 01-12-1998, which provides rates of market value to be charged for conversion of lease hold rights into free hold rights. It is stated that Annexure-I of G.O.Ms.No.816, dated 09-08-1994 contains different slabs based on extent of area of lease land and location of plots in respect of residential leases and Annexure-III contains charges in case of commercial leases. The petitioner has acted in contravention of the rules and constructed flats and sold them to different persons on commercial rates, warranting the Government to impose penalty by charging the prevailing market value. The writ petition filed by the petitioner-association is not maintainable, since there is no authorized lease agreement between the Government and the Association and as such, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. It is further stated that the petitioner-association made an application for conversion of lease hold rights into free hold rights as per G.O.Ms.No.816, dated 09-08-1994 and during the course of processing the case, it was observed that all transactions regarding transfer of lease hold rights are bogus and forged and as alleged by the petitioner, no registration is made in the name of M/s.Geetha Apartments Owners Association with the Registrar of Firms. But, on the contrary, Registration No.3121/89, dated 20-12-1989 is only a gift deed executed between S.Pandu (donor) and S.Hanumantha (donee). The lessee has allegedly occupied the land, built flats and sold them. Thus, there is a major violation of the conditions of the lease. Therefore, it was considered fit and proper to collect the present market value for regularisation of the transactions. Accordingly, the Government issued impugned memo, dated 11-12-2000, to collect the present market value for regularization of the transactions, else the present occupation by the flat owners is held to be unauthorized. Insofar as the allegation that lease hold rights for similar other flats were converted into free hold rights as per the Government scheme is concerned, in the case of other plots, conversion orders were issued after following the procedure well before March, 1998 on execution of conveyance deed of lessee. Hence, they become the absolute owners of the lease property and they have developed only after conversion of the lands into free hold lands. Thus, it is stated that the petitioner-association is not entitled for conversion of leasehold lands into free hold lands. It is not in dispute that the land in question is only leasehold land. It is also not in dispute that there are violations of terms and conditions of the lease. It is also not in dispute that the Government never initiated any action for cancellation of lease of the land, as renewed in favour of Smt.Varalaxmi for a period of 30 years vide lease deed No.4337, dated 21-12-1982. It is also not in dispute that the said lessee transferred the lease hold rights of the said plot in favour of her daughter-in-law B.Geetha and the said Geetha, without converting the lease hold rights into free hold rights, in violation the conditions and the rules, entered into an agreement with developers on 04-06-1986 and constructed flats in the said land and sold the same to the members of the petitioner-association. It is also not in dispute that flat owners, after coming to know about the violations and irregularities, made a representation, dated 25-06-1997, for regularization of the leasehold land into free hold land, as per G.O.Ms.No.816, dated 09-08- 1994, which was extended by G.O.Ms.No.286, dated 09-04-1997 up to 30-06-1997. The only question that arises for consideration is as to whether the petitioner-association is entitled for the benefit of G.O.Ms.No.816, dated 09-08-1994, as extended up to 30-06-1997, vide G.O.Ms.No.286, dated 09-04-1984, as per its representation, dated 25- 06-1997. In the above facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that G.O.Ms.No.816, dated 09-08-1994 does not indicate that leasehold lands cannot be converted into free hold lands for such major violations and in fact, the said G.O. covers all the aspects. A perusal of G.O.Ms.No.816, dated 09-08-1994, makes it clear that in case of residences, which were converted into commercial purposes, such as commercial complexes/flats in violation of lease conditions, the rates applicable for commercial purposes as shown in Annexure- III, shall be levied. In case of major violations, where the violations are not in contravention of the zonal regulations of the HUDA and building byelaws of Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, additional compounding fee as shown in Annexure-IV shall be levied subject to a minimum of Rs.1000/- marginal violation shall be ignored. In case of minor violations, penalty at the flats rate of Rs.1000/- shall be levied. I am of the opinion that as long as the lands continued to be leasehold lands, the members of the petitioner-association are entitled for the benefit of G.O.Ms.No.816, dated 09-08-1994. I am also of the opinion that the Government cannot clarify and reject the case of the petitioner directing it to pay the present market value without any reference to the Government order, which is illegal and unsustainable. As long as the said Government orders are in existence, not modified or rescinded or cancelled, the Government is bound to follow its own orders. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed setting aside the impugned order and the 1st respondent is directed to consider the representation of the petitioner-association, dated 25-06-1997, which was referred to by the Government in its Memo dated 14-11- 1997, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.816, dated 09-08-1994, as amended and extended from time to time, within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________ 26-08-2010 Prv