Back
2025 Supreme(Telangana) 171
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
T.VINOD KUMAR, J.
M/s. Sri Sai Builders Of M/s. Modi Ventures And Another - Appellant
Versus
The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corp. And Another - Respondent
Writ Petition No.2068 Of 2009
Decided On : 28-05-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : V VENKATARAMANA
For the Respondent: K RAVINDER REDDY SC FOR GHMC
The demand for Layout Regularization Scheme Charges applies to land acquired for construction, regardless of whether the land is divided into plots, as the charges pertain to the intended use and transfer of interests in land.
Headnote:(A) GHMC Act, 1955 - Section 388 - Layout Regularization Scheme Charges - Petitioners challenged the demand of Rs.25,54,430/- from the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation for construction permission as arbitrary and illegal - Court held that the charges applied even for additional land unapproved for division into plots, as it encompasses any land for building appearances. (Paras 12, 22, 30)
(B) Legal Framework for Layout Approval - Illustrates the definition of unapproved layouts as any subdivision without authority - Requirement for payment of charges irrespective of land division when selling built-up area along with undivided land share. (Paras 24, 26, 28)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners obtained a letter from the first respondent demanding Layout Regularization Scheme Charges for constructing additional apartment blocks on newly acquired land, arguing it was arbitrary since no splitting into plots was involved as per governmental orders.
Findings of Court:
The demand for charges was lawful since the proposed construction included undivided land shares, leading to classification as unapproved layout. The Writ Petition was dismissed.
Issues: Whether the demand for Layout Regularization Scheme Charges applies to land not divided into plots but used for constructions such as apartment blocks?
Ratio Decidendi: The court established that construction demands charges based on land use type, not solely on division into plots, confirming legal applicability of such charges despite petitioners’ protests.
Result: Writ Petition dismissed.
Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:
-
The demand for Layout Regularization Scheme Charges applies to land used for construction, even if the land has not been divided into plots. The charges pertain to the intended use and transfer of interests in land, including the sale of undivided shares along with built-up areas in residential apartments (!) (!) (!) (!) .
-
The definition of an unapproved or illegal layout includes subdivision of land into plots without approval, but it also extends to the use of land for building purposes without prior approval, especially when the interest in land is transferred along with constructed properties (!) (!) (!) .
-
The construction of residential apartments in land that has not been divided into plots but on which undivided shares are transferred constitutes use of land for building purposes under the relevant law, thereby making the land subject to regularization charges (!) (!) .
-
The entire extent of land acquired for construction, regardless of its size, is considered a plot for the purpose of these charges, especially when the land is used for constructing residential apartments and sold with undivided shares (!) .
-
The court concluded that the demand for the Layout Regularization Scheme Charges was lawful, as the construction and transfer of interests in the land fell within the scope of the applicable regulations. Therefore, the challenge to the levy was dismissed, and the writ petition was found to be without merit (!) (!) .
-
The legal framework does not restrict these charges solely to land that has been subdivided into plots; instead, it covers any land used for building purposes where interests are transferred, including in cases of apartment construction with undivided shares (!) (!) .
-
The petitioners' argument that the charges are only applicable when land is divided into plots and sold as such was rejected, as the law considers the transfer of undivided interests in land along with built-up areas as sufficient grounds for the charges (!) (!) .
-
The court emphasized that there is no specific restriction on the size of land considered as a plot, and all land used for construction and interest transfer in the manner described is subject to regularization charges (!) .
In summary, the court held that the application of Layout Regularization Scheme Charges extends beyond subdivided plots to include any land used for building purposes where interests are transferred, and the demand for such charges was upheld as lawful.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. facts concerning the petitioners' land purchase and initial construction. (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. petitioners' arguments against the demand for layout regularization charges. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 3. respondents' counterarguments regarding the necessity of charges. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 4. court's analysis on the applicability of charges. (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29) |
| 5. court confirms legality of charge demand. (Para 30) |
| 6. final conclusion and dismissal of the writ petition. (Para 31) |
ORDER :
(T. VINOD KUMAR, J.)
Heard Sri Vedula Venkataramana, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri Peri Prabhakar, learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondents and perused the record.
2. The petitioners by the present Writ Petition has assailed the action of 1st respondent authority in issuing letter dated 25.11.2008 whereby the 1st respondent had sought to levy a sum of Rs.25,54,430/- as “Layout Regularization Scheme Charges” for considering the application made by the petitioners for construction of two additional blocks of residential flats of five floors each in Sy. Nos.93, 94 and 95 situated at Mallapur village, Kapra, Ranga Reddy District, as extension to the existing group housing scheme, as arbitrary and illegal with a consequential direction to the respondents to refund the aforementioned amount paid by the petitioners along with 18% interest per annum.
3. It is the case of the petitioners that initially it had purchased land admeasuring Ac.4.00 gts. in Sy. Nos.93, 94 and 95 of Mallapur village, Kapra, Ranga Reddy District and had constructed five apartment blocks under group housing scheme by obtaining necessary construction/building permission from the 1st respondent without any deviation.
4. It is the further case of the petitioners that subsequently it had acquired the adjoining land admeasuring Ac.1.18 gts. in the same survey numbers with an objective to extend the same group housing scheme by constructing two other similar blocks of residential apartment and thus, approached the 1st respondent and submitted application dated 26.04.2008 seeking permission for construction of proposed two residential apartment blocks as an extension to the existing five blocks already constructed by it.
5. Petitioners further contend that the 1st respondent while considering the aforesaid application made by it seeking permission for construction of additional block consisting of two apartment blocks by its letter dated 25.01.2008 had called upon the petitioners to pay a sum of Rs.55,00,205/- under various heads for granting permission for construction of additional blocks.
6. Petitioners further contend that in the aforesaid letter issued by the 1st respondent demanding the aforesaid payment to be made by it for considering the application submitted seeking permission, the 1st respondent had demanded a sum of Rs.25,54,430/- under the head “Layout Regularization Scheme Charges”.
7. It is contended by the petitioners that on being issued with the above mentioned letter demanding payment which inter alia included component of “Layout Regularization Scheme Charges”, it had made a protest against the aforesaid levy by submitting a representation dated 30.12.2008 stating that “Layout Regularization Scheme Charges” would become payable only for such plot of land which were not having sanctioned layout as defined in G.O.Ms. No.902 Municipal Administration of Urban Development Department, dated 31.12.2007, and since the adjoining land acquired by the petitioners for construction of additional two blocks cannot be considered as unauthorized layout, the demand made under the head “Layout Regularization Scheme Charges” in the impugned proceeding is not valid. Despite the said representation and protest recorded by the petitioners, the 1st respondent had reiterated of its demand vide letter dated 17/27.01.2009 and called upon the peti
