The Hon'ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Writ Petition Nos.6115 & 4612 of 2002 Dated: 25-11-2009 Between: W.P.No.6115 of 2002 1.Smt.Kasuva Pentamma @ Prameela and 2 others. W.P.No.4612 of 2002 1.S.Ramkishan Rao and 3 others. …Petitioners and 1.State of A.P., rep. by its Secretary to Govt., Revenue (Assn.III) Dept., at Secretariat Building, Hyderabad and 2 others. …Respondents The Court made the following: Common Order : These two Writ Petitions raise common questions of fact and law and therefore, they are heard and disposed of together by Common Order. The predecessors in interest of the petitioners in these two Writ Petitions were lessees in respect of plot Nos.3362 and 155 situated at Rashtrapathi Road, Kingsway, Secunderabad. While the first mentioned plot admeasures 567 square yards equivalent to 5098.57 square feet, the latter plot admeasures 486 square yards. The leases were granted by the then Nizam Government in the year 1939 for a period of 90 years. Initially, the lease agreement was executed for a period of thirty years and on its expiry, the same was renewed for another period of thirty years in the year 1969. Before expiry of the lease period under the renewed lease agreements, respondent No.1 issued G.O.Ms.No.816, Revenue (Assn.III) Department, dated 09-08-1994, providing a scheme for conversion of leasehold rights into freehold rights subject to the various conditions mentioned in the annexures of the said GO. In the present Writ Petitions, the petitioners are concerned with the plots, which are situated in the notified commercial area. Annexure III of the said GO envisaged conversion charges in respect of commercial leases and the plots in occupation of the petitioners fall at Serial No.75 of the said annexure in respect of which basic value per square yard as on 01-10-1993 was shown as Rs.6,000/-. As per the said annexure, for the plots situated in the localities mentioned in Serial Nos.72 to 81, Rs.5,400/- was fixed as the rate per square yard for conversion if the size of the plots is between 151 square yards and 500 square yards, and Rs.6,000/- per square yard for the plots measuring above 500 square yards. The plot of the petitioners in W.P.No.4612 of 2002 being less than 500 square yards, they were required to pay Rs.5400/- per square yard while in respect of petitioners in W.P.No.6115 of 2002, the size of their plot being more than 500 square yards, they were required to pay a sum of Rs.6,000/- per square yard as conversion charges. This fixation of conversion charges is questioned in these two Writ Petitions. In the counter-affidavit filed by respondent No.3, fixation of the different rates has been sought to be justified. At the hearing, Sri K.Raghuveer Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioners, has drawn my attention to annexure-II dealing with conversion charges in respect of residential plots and pointed out that while the basic value per square yard as on 01-09-1993 was shown at Rs.1,000/-, Rs.150/- and Rs.190/- per square yard in respect of plots up to 600 square yards and 800 square yards respectively have been fixed as conversion charges. The learned Counsel submitted that while huge concession was given in respect of residential plots qua the basic value, such a concession has not been given in case of commercial plots. Having carefully heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners, I am of the view that this Court cannot interfere with the discretion exercised by respondent No.1. By its very nature, the utility of residential and commercial properties hugely varies. While the residential property is put to use for living purposes, a commercial property is put to use for carrying on business and earning profits. Though in normal course respondent No.1 would have been entitled to fix higher prices for residential plots, in its wisdom it decided to give concession to the persons holding leasehold rights in respect of residential plots. It cannot, therefore, be said that non-extension of this concession to the petitioners, who are holding leasehold rights in respect of commercial plots, constitutes invidious discrimination. Since residential and commercial plots fall in different categories, the petitioners cannot claim uniform treatment by applying Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In my considered view, there is an intelligible differentia between the two categories and the question of arbitrariness and discrimination on the part of respondent No.1 in fixing price on par with the market price, to the commercial plots occupied by the petitioners, does not arise. For the above-mentioned reasons, the Writ Petitions are dismissed. However, learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that as huge amounts are required to be paid, the petitioners may be granted reasonable time for payment. Having heard learned Government Pleader for Revenue in this regard, I deem it appropriate that it would be reasonable to permit the petitioners to pay the amount within a period of three months from today and on such payment, the respondents shall register the plots in their favour at their cost. Ordered accordingly. As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petitions, interim orders, dated 04-04-2002 and 14-03-2002, in W.P.Nos.6115 and 4612 of 2002 are vacated and WPMP.Nos.7660 and 5766 of 2002 in W.P.Nos.6115 and 4612 of 2002 are dismissed. ___________________________ (C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J) 25th November, 2009 lur