IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.21265 of 2005 Between: A.V. Ramesh Kumar ... PETITIONER a n d Director General, General Administration (Vigilance and Endowment), Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad and others … RESPONDENTS ORDER: This writ petition has been filed by A.V. Ramesh Kumar seeking mandamus declaring the memo of the District Panchayat Officer, Karimnagar – second respondent issued in memo No.A7/1776/2004-Pan, dated 23-08-2005 as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of principles of natural justice. 2. The petitioner claims to be engaged in real estate business in the name and style of M/s.Jayalakshmi Estates. He purchased various extents of lands in Bommakal grampanchayat for conversion of lands into house sites. He submitted application to the concerned Gram Panchayat for sanctioning of layout. The District Panchayat Officer, Karimnagar issued proceedings, dated 23-08-2005 directing the concerned panchayat to collect the lay out fee as indicated therein. 3. Assailing the schedule of lay out fees, which the petitioner is required to pay, this writ petition has been filed. For better understanding of the grievance of the petitioner, I deem it appropriate to refer paragraph Nos.6 and 7 of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition which reads as follows: “It is respectfully submitted that the action of the 1st respondent herein in submitting a report stating that the petitioner has not paid the layout fees and the basis on which he has come to the conclusion that it is an unauthorized layout is not known. No notice has been issued and no opportunity has been given to me at the time of conducting of the enquiry. I submit that the finding that have been recorded by the 1st respondent that I have not paid the layout fees as per the rules that has been prescribed is based on exparte enquiry that has been conducted behind my back. It is submitted that the exparte report of the 1st respondent herein formed the basis for the 2nd respondent to issue the impugned Memo. Hence it is respectfully submitted that the action of the 1st respondent herein and the consequential action of the 2nd respondent herein in issuing the impugned Memo is not legal and the same is arbitrary and is in violation of the principles of natural justice. It is respectfully submitted that the 2nd respondent herein on the basis of the Memo that has been issued by the 1st respondent has issued the Memo to the 3rd and 4th respondents herein directing them to take necessary action for collection of the amount. It is submitted that no notice has been issued and no opportunity has been given to the petitioner to dispute the liability and in fact when the petitioner has made a representation stating that the amount has already been paid as required under the rules, the 2nd respondent herein is not adjudicating on the said issue on the ground that in the report of the 1st respondent it has been held that the petitioner has paid deficit fees. It is respectfully submitted that the action of the 2nd respondent in issuing the impugned Memo without even affording an opportunity to the petitioner to rebut the allegation made is not legal and the same is arbitrary and is in violation of principles of natural justice.” 4. Rule nisi came to be issued on 30-09-2005. Respondents filed their counter-affidavit. 5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the land for which layout has been sought for is situated in the minor Gram Panchayat and therefore, the fee stipulated in memo dated 23-08-2005 is not in accordance with the Rules framed in the Andhra Pradesh Gram Panchayat Land Development (Layout and Building) Rules, 2002 published in G.O.Ms.No.67 dated 26-02-2002. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner took me to the schedule annexed to the Rules. The schedule reads as hereunder: Sl. No. Details of the item Gram Panchayats falling in UDA, Peripherial Gram Panchayats of Municipalities, Major Gram Panchayats, and declared potential areas Minor Gram Panchayat 1. Layout fee Rs.1.00 per M2 subject to minimum of Rs.3,000.00 R s . 0 . 2 5 per M2 subject to minimum of Rs.1,000.00 2. Inspection & Technical Scrutiny fee of Town Planning Dept., Rs.100.00 per acre subject to minimum of Rs.1,000.00 -- 3. Security Deposit Rs.2.00 per M2 subject to Minimum of Rs.10,000.00 R s . 1 . 0 0 per M2 subject to minimum of Rs.5,000.00 4. Building permit fee (a) Residential i) Semi permanent/ thatched Rs.50.00 per structure -- ii) permanent Rs.10.00 per M2 of built up area subject to minimum of Rs.200.00 Rs.2.00 per M2 of built up area subject to minimum of Rs.100.00 b) Non-residential Rs.20.00 per M2 of built up area subject to minimum of Rs.1000.00 Rs.4.00 per M2 of built up area subject to minimum of Rs.200.00 5. Renewal of lay out/ building plan 20% of the total fees 10% of the total fee 6. Penalty for (a) violation of rules Rs.1,000.00 Rs.500.00 (b) for continuing offence Rs.10.00 per day Rs.5.00 per day 7. Other fee ( a ) B u i l d i n g Application, Annexure Form and others annexures Rs.10.00 each Rs.5.00 each (b)Unobjectionable encroachment Rs.1.00 per M2 Rs.0.50 per M2 8. True copies charges (a) village map or ILUP Rs.100.00 each Rs.100.00 each (b)Approved Layout copy Rs.50.00 each Rs.50.00 each (c)Approved Building plan Rs.50.00 each Rs.50.00 each 7. A further submission has made that the petitioner submitted representation on 12-09-2005 bringing out the real facts of the location of the sites for which approval lay out has been sought for. His representation is stated to be still pending. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents 2 and 3 does not dispute the petitioner making representation dated 12-09-2005. 8. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of directing the second respondent to consider the representation dated 12-09-2005 and pass appropriate orders. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________________ B. SESHASAYANA REDDY, J August 11, 2010. PN THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.21265 of 2005 August 11, 2010