9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (4) TMI 1211X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bhakar Reddy, G.L. Nageswara Rao, N. Prashanth, S. Niranjan Reddy, M.S. Ramachandra Rao, Ch. Ravinder and O. Manohar Reddy, Advs. For Respondents: M. Surender Rao, G.P. for Revenue, G.P. for Municipal Administration, M. Dhananjay Reddy, Kalpana Ekbote, Suo Motu, R. Ramachandra Reddy, R. Radha Krishna Reddy, C.S. Kishore and K. Aruna, Advs. JUDGMENT L.N. Reddy, J. 1. In this batch of writ petitions, common questions arise for consideration. Hence, they are disposed of, through a common judgment. 2. Petitioners are, either corporate agencies, undertaking development of townships and residential areas in various places of the State, or individual owners of, plot of land. I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... with specific permission by the authority under the Act. The amount of fee to be paid for this purpose is also stipulated. 5. The petitioners submitted applications for grant of lay-out to the concerned authorities. Tentative lay-outs were sanctioned, by imposing certain conditions. One such condition is that, they must obtain clearance under the 2006 Act. The petitioners contend that such insistence is without any legal or factual basis. 6. According to the petitioners, the entire matter is covered and governed by the provisions of the 1975 Act, or the A.P. Municipalities Act, and A.P. Panchayat Raj Act, under which, the other local authorities function, and that the provisions of the 2006 Act do not apply to such ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urga Prasad, Sri B. Adinarayana Rao, Sri S. Niranjan Reddy, and Sri O. Manohar Reddy, learned Counsel. Broadly stated their contentions are that, the 2006 Act does not apply to the lands unless they are put to agricultural use, and that there is no presumption that every piece of land is put to agricultural use. They submit that the use to which a land can be put, is squarely covered by the 1975 Act, and the master plan published thereunder defines and specifies such uses. It is also submitted that once the land use is stipulated, the authority under that enactment cannot insist on any further permissions, that too, under different enactment. It is also submitted that the 1975 Act is a complete Code, for sanction of lay-outs and to specify ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ece of land can be put. However, their respective purposes and objectives are totally different from each other. The 1975 Act is intended exclusively for the systematic development of urban areas. It has no application for the areas outside the defined jurisdiction of the particular UDA. One of the important steps under that Act is to prepare and publish master plan for the urban development area. The master plan in turn, would stipulate the use to which the respective areas shown in it can be put. These include commercial, residential, industrial, recreational uses, etc., and each of the areas are called zones. The types of construction that can be made in the respective zones are also enlisted. Once an area is shown in a particular zone i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... general in its purport. On this basis it is pleaded that in the event of there being any conflict, the former will prevail upon the latter. Another facet of this contention is the purport of the non-obstante clauses contained in the said enactments. Reliance is placed upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in Ashoka Marketing Limited and Anr. v. Punjab National Bank and Ors. (1990) 4 SCC 406. The Supreme Court held that, where the same Legislation has enacted two Acts on the same subject, the one, which is special in nature would prevail upon the enactment, which is general in nature; in the event of there being any conflict. It was further held that, if both the enactments are special in nature, the one, which is later in point of time, w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es restrictions on the use of the land, irrespective of its location. 17. It is lastly urged by the petitioners that insistence on clearance under the 2006 Act, even where a land ceased to be agricultural, prior to the enactment of that legislation cannot be sustained in law. In this regard, it needs to be observed that there is no indication to the effect that the enactment is retrospective in operation. It is only from the date on which the Act came into force, that no piece of land which was earmarked for agriculture, and is shown as such in the revenue records, can be put to non-agricultural use. In case the land was already put to residential or other use, much before the said Act came into force, a permission under it can ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
