THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.25117 2007 ORDER: The petitioners purchased plot No.C-11, admeasuring 401 square yards forming part of Survey Nos.13, 14 and 15 of Saroornagar Village and Mandal, Ranga Reddy District for a consideration of Rs.28,98,840/- in a public auction. A sale deed was executed on 04.11.2004 by Hyderabad Urban Development Authority, respondent No.2 herein, which has since been renamed as Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority. They submitted an application to respondent No.2 with a request to accord permission to construct. Respondent No.2 demanded a sum of Rs.31,096/- for according the building permission. The petitioners paid that amount on 13.06.2007. The permission was released on 20.06.2007. At a later point of time, when the petitioners wanted certain modification of the plan, respondent No.2 insisted on payment of Rs.89,375/-. W.P.No.18822 of 2007 was filed challenging the said demand and through a separate order, this Court allowed the writ petition. In this writ petition, the grievance of the petitioners is that respondent No.2 has forwarded their application to the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, respondent No.3 herein, through a covering letter, thereby, necessitating the permission to be obtained from respondent No.3 once again. The petitioners challenge the action of respondent No.2 and according to them, no further permission is necessary, when that was accorded by respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 filed a counter-affidavit stating that what was accorded by it was only technical approval and the petitioners shall have to approach respondent No.3 for building permission. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3. Respondent No.2 is created under the A.P. Urban Areas (Development) Act, 1975 (for short ‘the Act’). It is conferred with wide ranging powers and it is empowered to undertake development of urban area in and around Hyderabad. As part of its activity, respondent No.2 develops vacant land into plots in accordance with layout and in many cases, plots are sold by itself. If a private agency or individual intends to obtain a layout, they shall be under obligation to pay development charges. If any construction is proposed to be made on a plot, which is not part of any layout, development charges are to be collected by the Municipal Corporation. Once respondent No.2 has developed the land and sold the plots, the necessity of collecting separate development charges does not arise. Normally, one approaches the Municipal Corporation seeking to obtain building permission. In the instant case, the petitioners approached respondent No.2 seeking such permission. Though this may appears strange, delegation of powers made from time to time makes the things clear. Respondent No.2 is not conferred with the power to accord building permission independently. However, where the construction is to be made upon the plots sold by respondent No.2, such a power is conferred upon it, duly withdrawing the corresponding power from the Municipal Corporation i.e. respondent No.3. This is evident from the letter, dated 07.05.1997, issued by respondent No.2. It reads as under: “In the 156th HUDA Meeting held on 18.12.1997, it has been decided to retain the delegation of powers for sanction of Building Permissions in Layouts, Group Housing Schemes, Multi-storied Buildings, and other permissions with HUDA in all sites/plots allotted/sanctioned by Hyderabad Urban Development Authority in the projects undertaken under Section –13 Act, 1975 by withdrawing the same already delegated to MCH/Municipalities in Hyderabad Development Area. Therefore, all the concerned Officers are directed to take necessary action to sanction/clear the cases of Building Permissions etc., in the Projects undertaken/developed by HUDA as per rules hereafter till further orders.” From this, it is clear that respondent No.2 shall be the authority to release the building permissions also, may be by collecting the requisite fee. It is not in dispute that respondent No.2 collected the requisite fee and accorded sanction. Though respondent No.2 calls it as technical approval, in terms of letter, dated 07.05.1997, and the corresponding provisions of the Act and the Rules made thereunder, it is nothing short of building permission. That being the case, it is not at all necessary for the petitioners to approach respondent No.3 once again seeking permission. In such an event, they will be required to pay the amount once again. That is neither the intention under the Act nor the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act. Hence, the writ petition is allowed and it is directed that the petitioners shall be entitled to make construction on the basis of the permission accorded by respondent No.2 through proceedings, dated 20.06.2007, and it shall not be necessary for them to approach respondent No.3 seeking permission. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:24.03.2011 kdl