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 List
← Previous Next →

2010 (4) TMI 1211

..... nivas Velagapudi, Palivela Satyaraja Babu, P. Pandu Ranga Reddy, V.V. Anil Kumar, Deepak Bhattacharjee, G. Kalyan Chakravarthy, E. Ajay Reddy, B. Mahender Reddy, K.V.L. Narasimha Rao, B. Venkata Rama Rao, Peri Prabhakar, S. Lakshma Reddy, Maamu Vani, V.V.N. Narayana Rao, M. Papa Reddy, Harsha Reddy, K. Ranga Rao, Vedula Venkataramana, P.R. Prasad, K. Joseph, B. Adinarayana Rao, L. Prabhakar 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, .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

..... whose jurisdiction it is situated. 4. The A.P. State Legislature enacted the Andhra Pradesh Agricultural Land (Conversion for Non-Agricultural Purposes) Act, 2006 (for short 'the 2006 Act'), which prohibited conversion of agricultural lands into non-agricultural purposes, except 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 th .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

..... ltural use, except with specific permission. The UDAs have also filed a counter-affidavit, almost on the same lines. 8. The arguments on behalf of the petitioners were advanced by Sri V. Venkata Ramana, learned Senior Counsel, Sri M.V. Durga 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 .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

..... ies amounts to enforcement 6i the provisions of the 2006 Act, under which they do not figure anywhere. 12. The two enactments referred to above, no doubt, control the use, to which a piece 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, recreation .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

..... ommercial, or any such other use. 14. One of the arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioners is that the 1975 Act is special in nature and the 2006 Act is 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 .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

..... er. As mentioned in the earlier paragraphs, while the former deals with the promotion and development of urban areas, the latter places 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 t .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

 

 

← Previous Next →

 

 

|| 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.
|| Blog || Site Map - Recent || Site Map ||