THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.2068 of 2009

ORDER

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 1^st 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 1^st 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 1^st 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 1^st 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 1^st respondent had reiterated of its demand vide letter dated 17/27.01.2009 and called upon the petitioners to make the payment of the same within seven days, failing which the file relating to the application made by the petitioners for sanction of permission would be closed.

8. Petitioners would further contend that being faced with such a situation and also the immediate requirement to obtain sanction plan for undertaking construction, it had made the payment of the amount demanded by the 1st respondent under the impugned proceeding for obtaining permission.

9. Petitioners contend that since the demand