THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition No.29826 of 2011 Dated 21st December, 2011 Between: M/s.Brandix India Apparel City Private Limited and others …Petitioners And APIIC Industrial Area Local Authority, AP SEZ, Atchutapuram, rep.by its Deputy Zonal Manager (E) & Executive Officer. …Respondent Counsel for the petitioners: Sri N.Harinath Reddy Counsel for the respondent: Sri P.Roy Reddy The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the action of the respondent-Corporation in issuing letter bearing No.APSEZ/ATP/IALA/Brandix/CWTP/07, dated 05.05.2011, for payment of vacant land development charges of Rs.3,50,484/- for the water treatment plant of petitioner No.1; letter bearing No.APSEZ/ATP/IALA/Brandix/ETP/07, dated 06.05.2011, for payment of vacant land development charges of Rs.9,58,302/- for effluent treatment plant of petitioner No.1; letter bearing No.APSEZ/ATP/IALA/BAIPL-18A/07, dated 08.04.2011, for payment of vacant land development charges of Rs.7,96,427/- for petitioner No.2; letter bearing No.APSEZ/ATP/IALA/OIPL-Plot No.15/07, dated 10.11.2010, for payment of vacant land development charges of Rs.19,94,641/- for petitioner No.3 and letter bearing No.APSEZ/ATP/IALA/Brandix/PE(I)PL/07 for payment of vacant land development charges of Rs.6,74,690/- for petitioner No.4 as illegal and arbitrary. Petitioner No.1 entered into Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with the Government on 02.07.2005, whereunder Acs.1000.00 of land was given to it on lease for a period of 25 years for establishment of Apparel Park. A lease deed was executed between petitioner No.1 and the respondent on 20.06.2006. Petitioner Nos.2 to 4 are claiming through petitioner No.1. When the petitioners applied to the respondent-Corporation, which is entrusted with the functions of the local authority under Section 147 of the A.P.Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 for grant of permissions for construction of buildings, the respondent has levied the above-mentioned charges on various counts as referred to above. This levy is challenged by the petitioners mainly on the ground that petitioner No.1 being lessee and not the owner of the property, they are not liable to pay the charges demanded by the respondent. A counter affidavit is filed by the General Manager (Law) of the respondent-Corporation, wherein it is inter alia stated that the demands made by him are in consonance with the Urban Development Authority (Hyderabad) Rules, 1977 (for short ‘the Rules’), which are framed in exercise of the power conferred by Section 58 of the A.P.Urban Areas (Development) Act, 1975 (for short ‘the Act’). It is further stated that Sections 27 and 28 of the Act r/w Rule 15 of the Rules cast an obligation on the petitioners to pay development fee in relation to the development works that are being undertaken by them. The counter affidavit relied upon Clause-5.2 of the lease deed, dated 20.06.2006, and averred that the lessee shall inter alia comply with all laws applicable to the land in relation to construction, operation and management of the Apparel Park, including municipal laws. At the hearing, Sri N.Harinath Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, relied upon clause-6.1(e) of the lease deed and submitted that since petitioner No.1 is assured that no approvals are required to be taken, the respondent is not justified in levying the above- mentioned charges. I am afraid, I cannot accept this submission. Clause-6.1(e) of the lease deed reads as under: “The Land is free from any Liens or assignments of whatsoever nature and there are no Approvals required (including without limitation those relating to change of land use for Apparel Park) from any of the Government Agency for a continuing and uninterrupted possession, occupation and use by the Lessee of the Land for the purposes of the Project and all or any such Approvals have been obtained and are in full force and effect.” From the above re-produced Clause, it is evident that the same contains a recital relating to freehold nature of the land under the lease deed and it was held out therein by the respondent that for a continuing and uninterrupted occupation and use by the lessee of the land for the purposes of the project, no approvals are required from any of the agencies and that approvals in that regard have already been obtained and are in full force and effect. Under this Clause, the respondent has nowhere assured the petitioners that they are not liable to meet the statutory levies required for the purpose of construction and other developmental activities to be carried on the land. Far from such an assurance, an obligation is cast on the lessee to bear such levies under Clause 5.2(b) of the lease deed, which reads as under: “The Lessee shall be responsible for complying with the Laws applicable to the Land and in relation to construction, operation and management of the Apparel Park, including municipal laws, laws relating to environment, public nuisance, public morale, etc. The Lessee shall at its sole cost and expense comply, and take all necessary actions to comply, with all applicable central, state and local requirements relating to the protection of public health, safety and welfare, and with all applicable environmental laws relating to the Apparel Park.” From the above-noted Clause, it is clear that the lessee is made to follow the laws applicable to the land in relation to the construction, operation and management of the Apparel Park including the municipal laws, laws relating to environment, public nuisance, public morale etc. The lessee has to bear the costs and expenses and take all necessary actions to comply with all applicable central, state and local requirements relating to the protection of public health, safety and welfare. The stand taken by the respondent that the demands made are traceable to the provisions of the Act and the Rules is not controverted by the petitioners. Therefore, under Clause-5.2(b) of the lease deed, it is the obligation of the petitioners to meet the demands made by the respondent under the Act and the Rules. On the above analysis, I am of the opinion that the demands made by the respondent under the impugned proceedings cannot be termed as illegal or unauthorised. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.36950 of 2011 is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 21st December, 2011 VGB