IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 1113 of 2007 Between: Sait Heeranand Ramsukh, Registered Patnership rep by its Managing Partner Shrigopal Inani, S/o. Bansilal Inani, aged 65 years, R/o. D.No. 15-9-56, Maharajgunj, Hyderabad - 500 012 ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, Rep by its Secretary 2 The Director of Town and Country Planning, A.C. Guards, Hyderabad. 3 The Municipal Corporation of Karkinada, Kakinada, Rep by its Commissioner .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in not considering the application of the petitioner firm dated 13-12-2006 for conversion of its site and old shed bearing D.No. 2-1-66 in T.S. No. 157/1, 157/2 Kakinada from Industrial to commercial use, as illegal, arbitrary and consequently direct the 3rd respondent to dispose of the application forthwith and pass such other or further orders as the Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI O.MANOHER REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: SRI S.NAGESWARA REDDY The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.1113 of 2007 ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the 3rd respondent-Municipal Corporation of Kakinada in not considering the application, dated 13.12.2006, of the petitioner Firm for conversion of its site and old shed bearing D.No.2-1-66 in T.S.No.157/1 and 157/2 of Kakinada, from Industrial to Commercial use, as illegal and arbitrary. It is the case of the petitioner Firm that it is the absolute owner of the land admeasuring 2453.27 sq. mts. in Sy.No.157/1 and 157/2 of Kakinada town, along with the godown existing therein. As per the Master plan, the said area is classified as Industrial zone. The grievance of the petitioner is that since its site is on the main road and surrounded by busy commercial complexes, it gave an application to the 3rd respondent on 13.12.2006, who in turn has to forward the same to the 1st and 2nd respondents with necessary recommendations, for conversion of the land use in respect of the petitioner’s site from Industrial to Commercial use, but so far the 3rd respondent has not considered the same. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 3rd respondent, wherein, while admitting that the petitioner has submitted an application on 13.12.2006 for conversion of its site from Industrial use to commercial use, it is stated that the application filed by the petitioner is not in prescribed form and also not accompanied by the fee prescribed. It is also stated that under Rule 15 of the Rules framed under the A.P.Urban Areas (Development) Act, 1975 (for short ‘the Act’), fee payable on application for permission of the Development of land is prescribed. It is further stated that as per the provisions of the Act and the Rules made thereunder, the application for conversion of land use is deemed valid only when the fees determined by the authority is paid in advance. The petitioner also filed reply affidavit stating that the objections with regard to the payment of fees and that the application was not submitted in prescribed form were never raised by the 3rd respondent at any point of time. It is also stated that the petitioner is willing to pay the fees as prescribed by the 3rd respondent. Inasmuch as the petitioner did not file the application in the prescribed form and has not paid the prescribed fee as per the Rules framed under the Act, the petitioner is directed to submit a fresh application in the prescribed form to the respondents within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of such application, the respondents shall determine the prescribed fee and communicate the same to the petitioner, and thereupon, the petitioner shall pay the same. It is further directed that, on receipt of the said prescribed fee from the petitioner, the respondents shall consider the application in accordance with the provisions of the A.P. Urban Areas (Development) Act, 1975 and the Rules made thereunder, for the purpose of change of land use, and pass appropriate orders as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the prescribed fee, and communicate such orders to the petitioner. Subject to the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. _________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 28.04.2009 Note: Furnish CC in one week Bo v v