2013 (7) TMI 1173 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of rejection of NOC for change of land use.
2. Interpretation of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999.
3. Validity of exemption orders under Section 20 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976.

Summary:

1. Legality of rejection of NOC for change of land use:
The petitioner challenged the respondents' rejection of their request for a No-Objection Certificate (NOC) for using the subject land for a different purpose, citing proceedings dated 04.03.2013 and memo dated 24.06.2011, which relied on an earlier memo dated 24.04.2008. The petitioner sought to set aside these orders and direct the respondents to grant the NOC without reference to previous restrictions imposed while granting exemption u/s 20 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976.

2. Interpretation of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999:
The Repeal Act was adopted by the Andhra Pradesh State Legislative Assembly on 27.03.2008. Circular instructions issued thereafter stated that all cases with orders passed u/s 20(1) of the Act would be saved and further action should continue as if the Principal Act had not been repealed. The petitioner argued that the respondents acted illegally in rejecting their request for change of land use based on an erroneous interpretation of the Repeal Act.

3. Validity of exemption orders under Section 20 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976:
The court examined whether the failure to file a statement u/s 15 of the Act justified the rejection of the NOC request. It was noted that unless an order was passed by the State Government withdrawing the exemption granted earlier, the provisions of Chapter III of the Act would not apply. The court observed that the exemption order continued to remain in force despite the petitioner's failure to comply with Section 15 of the Act. The court also referenced the judgment in Surender Raj Jaiswal v. Government of A.P. 2011(6) ALD 198, which held that conditions imposed in the order granting exemption became unenforceable and non-est after the Repeal Act came into force.

Conclusion:
The court set aside the impugned proceedings dated 24.06.2011 and 04.03.2013, directing the first respondent to reconsider the petitioner's representation for grant of NOC afresh in accordance with the law and the observations made in the judgment, within four months from the date of receipt of the order. The writ petition was disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs.