Tax Management India. Com
                        Law and Practice: A Digital eBook ...

Category of Documents

TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Case Laws Acts Notifications Circulars Classification Forms Manuals SMS News Articles
Highlights
D. Forum
What's New

Share:      

        Home        
 

TMI Blog

Home

2010 (4) TMI 1211

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ao, 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. In the recent past, there was \phenomenal increase in conversion of agricultural, or barren lands into .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e 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 cases. It is also submitted that the 2006 Act is general in its purport, where as the 1975 Act and other related enactments are specific in nature, and t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 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 the land use, and there is absolutely no basis for UDAs or the local authorities to insist that, clearance under 2006 Act must be obtained, as a condition precedent for sanction of .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 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 in the master plan, it cannot be put to a different use (Section 15). For example, in the residential zone, establishment of an industry cannot be permitted. The power to convert land use in a particular zone to a different one, is v .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 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, would prevail upon the other. The principle that a special enactment would prevail over the general one was reiterated by the Supreme Court in Suresh Nanda v. C.B.I. AIR 2008 SC 1414 : 2008 (2) ALT (Crl.) 344 (SC) : 2008 (5) SCJ 392. 15. The scope of the Reco .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 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 cannot be insisted. This, however, is a matter, which needs to be verified by the concerned authority. If the petitioners are able to prove that the land has been put to non-agricultural use much before the Act came into force, they cannot be required to obtain the permission under that Act. 18. For .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || Database || Members || Refer Us ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.
|| Site Map - Recent || Site Map ||