Authority must adhere to applicable regulatory frameworks when determining development charges and project timelines, ensuring compliance with statutory periods defined in the HMDA Act.

ORDER :

Laxmi Narayana Alishetty, J.

This writ petition is filed to declare the proceedings dated 21.04.2014 and 19.12.2013 issued by the 2^nd respondent, as arbitrary and illegal being contrary to the terms of G.O.Ms.No.118, MA and UD Department, dated 16.02.2009, and also to declare the Circular dated 19.03.2009, 10.03.2010 and condition No.9 of approval dated 21.02.2009, as arbitrary and illegal and for consequential reliefs.

2. Heard Sri Hari Sreedhar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Siddhartha, learned counsel representing Sri V.Narasimha Goud, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner submitted application dated 04.08.2008 seeking permission for development of land admeasuring 46,793.62 Square Meters in Sy.Nos.485-491, 492/3 and 496 of Madhavaram Village, Jinnaram Mandal, Medak District; that respondent No.2 vide letter dated 25.09.2008 informed the petitioner to pay development charges @ 40/- per square meter as per G.O.Ms.No.439, MA and UD Department dated 13.06.2007, along with processing charges @ Rs.2/- per square meter and publication charges of Rs.5,000/-, in total amounting to Rs.19,09,301/-. Accordingly, the petitioner paid the said amount.

4. While so, the State Government issued G.O.Ms.No.118, Municipal Administration and Urban Development (II) Department, dated 16.02.2009, reducing the development charges to Rs.10/-per square meter from Rs.40/- per square meter.

5. The respondent No.2 vide letter L.P.No.14/LO/Plg/HMDA/ 2009, dated 21.02.2009, approved the draft development plan to an extent of 46,383.62 square meters subject to the conditions mentioned therein, which was signed on 26.02.2009. In the said letter at condition No.9 it was mentioned that the development works should be completed within a period of one year from the date of the approval, though the statute provides three years period.

6. On 19.03.2009, the respondent No.2 issued a Circular stating that any layout approved by it on or after 16.02.2009 will be entitled to get the benefit of reduced rates as per G.O.Ms.118, dated 16.02.2009.

7. On 25.05.2011, the respondent No.2 addressed letter asking the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.45,000/- to extend the period for completing the development works up to 20.02.2012, and on payment of said amount, time to complete the development works was extended till 20.02.2012 by respondent No.2 vide its letter dated 18.06.2011.

8. On 03.11.2012, the respondent No.2 issued office order clarifying the time period for carrying out development works as three years and the same can be extended for another period of three years, annually, on payment of Rs.20% of the total amount paid per each year.

9. The petitioner completed all the development works by March, 2013 and addressed letter dated 15.04.2013 to the respondent No.2 requesting to release the final layout and also the mortgaged plots by duly enclosing photographs evidencing completion of development works. In response to the said letter, respondent No.2 issued a letter dated 19.12.2013 informing the petitioner to pay revalidation charges of Rs.11,45,583/- for extension of said period for another 3 years @ 20% per year on the total amount, since the petitioner could not complete the development works within a period of 3 years.

10. In response to the letter dated 19.12.2013, the petitioner submitted detailed representation dated 07.02.2014 informing the respondent No.2 that initially the draft layout was approved for one year i.e. up to 20.02.2010, contrary to Section 21 of the Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority Act, 2008, which stipulates time period fo