THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.5797 OF 2008 DATED: 19.10.2009 Between: Dr. Rumalla Sudhakar .. Petitioner And Government of Andhra Pradesh, Revenue Department, Rep. by its Estate Officer, Secunderabad and another. .. Respondents ORDER: Petitioner, represented by the Special Power of Attorney Holder by name J.S. Mahesh, claims that the property bearing plot No.3119/2, admeasuring 135 sq. yards, situated at R.P. Road, Secunderabad, was leased out to him, by the 1st respondent- Estates Officer, Secunderabad, vide proceedings dated 22.06.1967, and since then he has been in possession and enjoyment of the same. It is the case of the petitioner that, during the year 1997, the then Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, A.P., Hyderabad, vide proceedings dated 04.09.1997, accorded permission for conversion of leasehold rights of the said property into freehold rights, in his favour, on payment of Rs.7,45,200/-, and pursuant thereto, the 1st respondent issued notice dated 21.03.1998 directing the petitioner to pay the said amount for further action, and no time limit was stipulated for payment of the amount. However, since an amount of Rs.97,200/- was imposed as additional compounding fee, on the allegation that the petitioner has sublet part of the property, the petitioner made a representation on 12.02.1999 requesting the 2nd respondent- Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, A.P., Hyderabad, to reduce the said compounding fee. Thereafter, the officials concerned inspected the premises and found that only a small potion was subleased and, thereupon, the 2nd respondent, vide proceedings dated 28.04.1999, waived the compounding fee of Rs.97,200/- and imposed penalty of Rs.1,000/-. Pursuant thereto, the 1st respondent issued notice dated 04.06.1999 to the petitioner, directing him to pay the revised amount of Rs.6,49,000/- towards conversion charges, and even in this notice also, no time limit was stipulated for payment. The petitioner paid an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- on 09.08.1999, Rs.1,00,000/- on 29.01.2002 and the balance amount of Rs.3,49,000/- on 03.03.2003, by way of challans. Petitioner states that, even after payment of the entire amount demanded, no conveyance deed is executed by the 1st respondent, and, therefore, he submitted a representation dated 21.02.2006 to the 1st respondent, who, in turn, addressed a letter to the 2nd respondent, stating that the petitioner paid the conversion charges and other charges with a delay of 45 months, and sought clarification as to the date from which 1% penal interest to be levied for execution of conveyance deed, and ultimately, issued the impugned notice dated 10.10.2007, directing the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.7,69,668/-, in total, i.e. Rs.4,14,720/- towards 1% penal interest on Rs.6,48,000/- for 64 months, Rs.2,57,748/- towards lease rent from 15.12.1996 to March 2003 and Rs.97,200/- towards additional compounding fee. It is the grievance of the petitioner that no time limit is stipulated in the notices issued by the 1st respondent, for payment of conversion charges, and, thus, imposing 1% penal interest on the conversion charges for 64 months is unjustified, and further the additional compounding fee of Rs.97,200/- was already reduced to Rs.1,000/- by the respondents and, hence, imposition of the said amount is also not proper, apart from demanding a huge amount towards lease rent. Respondent No.1 filed a detailed counter-affidavit denying the allegations made by the petitioner and it is stated that, in the order dated 04.09.1997 of the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, whereunder permission for conversion of leasehold rights into freehold rights was granted, it was clearly mentioned that the amounts demanded should be paid within 30 days from the date of order, and a copy of the said order was marked to the petitioner. It is further stated that in view of the abnormal delay of 64 months in payment of the amount, penal interest @ 1% on conversion charges was imposed, as imposed in similar cases, and also the additional compounding fee of Rs.97,200/-, which was earlier waived, was ordered to be paid, as per the orders of the 2nd respondent, who examined the whole issue. It is also stated that the lease expired on 14.12.1996 and the conversion charges were paid in full by 03.03.2003 and, therefore, the petitioner is liable to pay the lease rent for the period from 15.12.1996 to 03.03.2003. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents. Admittedly, no time limit was prescribed in the notices dated 21.03.1998 and 04.06.1999 issued by the 1st respondent, for payment of the amounts demanded. Except stating that the petitioner committed abnormal delay in payment of the demanded amounts, in the counter-affidavit, it is not properly explained as to under what rule or guidelines the penal interest @ 1% on the conversion charges and the additional compounding fee that was waived earlier were demanded. Further, when the petitioner paid Rs.2,00,000/- on 09.08.1999, Rs.1,00,000/- on 29.01.2002 and the balance amount of Rs.3,49,000/- on 03.03.2003, by way of challans, the demand of 1% penal interest on the entire amount of Rs.6,48,000/- for 64 months is not proper. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the impugned notice dated 10.10.2007 is arbitrary and illegal and is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the impugned notice dated 10.10.2007 is set aside. However, the respondents are entitled to collect the rents for the subject premises, as were being charged, payable up to March 2003. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs. _________________ JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU 19th October, 2009 IBL