The central legal point established in the judgment is the inapplicability of G.O.Ms.No. 902, dated 31.12.2007, and its conditions to the construction of a warehouse, leading to the declaration of the imposition of Condition No. 17 and the demand for open space charges as invalid and unsustainable.

ORDER :

1. The present Writ Petition is filed inter alia, aggrieved by the Condition Nos.15 & 17 imposed in the Communication dated 30.11.2009 while granting “Technical Approval” to the petitioner for Construction of a Warehouse Shed and the demand for producing the Mortgage Deed and payment of Rs.42,85,450/- towards 14% open space charges as per G.O.Ms.No. 902, Municipal Administration & Urban Development (M1) Department, Dated 31.12.2007 vide Endorsement dated 01.06.2010 issued by the 1st respondent, to declare the same as invalid, in-operative, non-est in Law apart from seeking other reliefs.

2. The brief facts as per the averments made in the Writ Affidavit may be narrated for better appreciation of the case as follows:

The Writ Petitioner is a Company established under the provisions of the Companies Act and engaged in multifarious businesses, including Fast Moving Consumer Goods (FMCG) Business across the Country. It owns lands in Chilakaluripet, Guntur District of an extent of 37336.67 Sq. Mtrs., forming part of Survey Nos.130/C1B, 133/A, 140/AA and 140/AB1. It submitted an application dated 02.04.2009 to the 1st respondent-Municipality seeking permission/approval for Construction of a Warehouse in an extent of 17,531 Sq. Mtrs., out of the above mentioned land. The 1st respondent-Municipality forwarded the file of the petitioner to the Director of Town and Country Planning/the 2nd respondent herein for necessary “Technical Approval” and the 3rd respondent i.e., The Joint Director of Town and Country Planning accorded “Technical Approval” for Construction of a Warehouse by stipulating various conditions, including Condition No. 15 to mortgage 10% of the total built up area and Condition No. 17 requiring the petitioner to pay 14% open space charges as per G.O.Ms.No. 902, dated 31.12.2007, before release of plans of the proposed Warehouse Shed. Subsequently, the 1st respondent-Municipality with reference to the “Technical Approval” dated 30.11.2009 and the Conditions imposed therein, called upon the petitioner to comply with certain requirements as set out in the Endorsement dated 01.06.2010 including submission of Mortgage Deed and payment of Rs.42,85,450/-.

3. Heard Mr.Ghanta Rama Rao, Learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr.G.V.S.Ganesh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and the Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respective respondents.

4. The Learned Senior Counsel submits that pursuant to the “Technical Approval” dated 30.11.2009, the petitioner constructed the Warehouse and an “Occupancy Certificate” was also issued as there were no deviations and in view of the same, Condition No. 15 imposed while granting “Technical Approval” on 30.11.2009 need not be examined. He submits that the other Condition No. 17 as to whether the petitioner has to pay 14% open space charges as per G.O.Ms.No. 902 dated 31.12.2007 is the only issue, which is required to be adjudicated. He submits that the said G.O is not applicable to the Construction of Warehouse made by the petitioner and that the G.O was intended for Regulation of un-approved and illegal layouts and accordingly Rules were provided there under. Drawing the attention of this Court to the relevant aspects of the said G.O, the learned counsel would submit that when there is a demarcation of land, which is sought to be converted as sites/plots, then open space is required to be provided. He submits that in the present case, the petitioner made construction i.e., Warehouse in its own land and there is no layout nor the land was sought to be disposed of as House Sites. He submits that as G.O.Ms.No. 902, dated 31.12.2007 is not applicable to the case of the petitioner, imposition of Condition No. 17 while granting “Technical Approval” and the subsequent demand for payment of the amount mentioned above through the Communication dated 01.06.2010, is also not sustainable. The learned counsel also places reliance o