JUDGMENT 1. In this writ petition the Petitioner challenges the order dated 28-06-2004 passed by the 2nd Respondent demanding an amount of Rs.81,740/-towards developmental charges for sub- division and for issuance of No-objection Certificate for sale of vacant land of the Petitioner in an extent of 4000.42 square meters out of 8174 square meters. 2. The Petitioner earlier filed W.P.No.17927 of 2003 for almost the self-same relief but challenging the letter dated 25-06-2003 demanding the subdivision fee and burnt electrical meter charges for issuing No-objection Certificate (NOC). This court disposed of the said Writ Petition by order dated 09-04-2004 noticing that there was no basis for demanding an amount of Rs.81,740/-, set aside the proceedings dated 25-06-2003 leaving it open to the Respondents to levy the said amount by quantifying the same in accordance with the applicable guidelines in this regard. It was also directed that while fixing the said amount, the Respondents are also directed to consider the plea of the Petitioner that the levy is to be in accordance with the G.O.Ms.No.150, dated 27-02-2001. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the Petitioner is a small scale industry manufacturing Ayurvedic medicines and the factory is situated at Gurrampalem, Pendurthy Mandal, Visakhapatnam. The Petitioner purchased an extent of 8174 sq.mts from the Respondent situated at industrial development area in Gurrampalem, Pendurthy Mandal, Visakhapatnam in Sy.No.175 and 178 under a registered sale deed dated 10-12-2002 for a sale consideration of Rs.2,05,921-50 ps. Thereafter, a factory was established and is still running. When it was running in heavy losses and there was pressure to repay the loans by Bank of Baroda, Visakahpatnam branch, the Petitioner decided to sell half of the land purchased by it i.e., 4000.42 sq.mts which is lying vacant after construction of the factory. The Petitioner addressed number of letters for issuing NOC for the sale of the land and when there was delay the Petitioner borrowed amounts from private sources and discharged the debt of the Bank of Baroda. After prolonged correspondence, the 2nd Respondent issued a letter dated 25-06-2003 directing the Petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.81,740/-towards process fee for approval of subdivision of plot Nos.24 & 25 for issuing NOC. After prolonged correspondence, the 2nd Respondent issued a letter dated 25-06-2003 directing the Petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.81,740/-towards process fee for approval of subdivision of plot Nos.24 & 25 for issuing NOC. The Petitioner submitted a detailed representation on 26-06-2003 and when there was no decision of the Respondents and there was demand from the prospective purchaser for return of the advance amount, the Petitioner filed W.P.No.17927 of 2003 and the same was disposed off on 09-04-2004 as aforesaid. Evenafter disposal of the Writ Petition, when there was no response from the Respondents, the Petitioner filed C.C.No.739 of 2004 for punishing the Respondents for wilful disobedience of the order of this court dated 09-04-2004 and thereafter the 2nd Respondent passed the impugned order dated 28-06-2004 demanding an amount of Rs.81,740/-towards developmental charges for subdivision fee, when in the earlier letter dated 26-05-2003 the reason shown was process for approval of subdivision of plot Nos.24 and 25. Challenging the said order, the present writ petition is filed. 4. This court granted interim suspension of the impugned notice for a period of two weeks on 14-07-2004 and later on 14-12-2004 directed the Respondents to issue NOC for sale of 4000.42 sq.mts of site in plot Nos.24 and 25 to enable sale of the said land by the Petitioner to M/s.Simhagiri Milk Food Private Limited on condition of the Petitioner depositing an amount of Rs.81,740/-towards developmental charges, but subject to the result of the writ petition and without prejudice to the contentions urged in the writ petition. 5. No counter-affidavit has been filed in the present writ petition. But the learned counsel for the Respondents advanced arguments on the basis of the counter filed in W.P. No. 17927 of 2003. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner and Standing Counsel for the Respondents. 7. The learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the request for NOC does not attract developmental charges since the area was already developed by the date of sale. Further, it is contended that the Petitioner already paid the developmental charges initially at the time of purchase of the entire land of 8174 sq.mts and since no further development involves in the sale of half of the said land, the demand for payment of the developmental charges again is arbitrary. Further, it is contended that the Petitioner already paid the developmental charges initially at the time of purchase of the entire land of 8174 sq.mts and since no further development involves in the sale of half of the said land, the demand for payment of the developmental charges again is arbitrary. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that demand of an amount of Rs.81,740/- @ Rs.10/- per square meter based on the measurements of the entire land for the sale of half of the originally purchased land is unreasonable and arbitrary. 8. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel for the Respondents contends that the powers of the Urban Development Authorities were delegated to the Respondents vide G.O.Ms.No.665, Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department, dated 19-12-1996 and hence the Respondents are competent to impose developmental charges and the charges demanded are as per the rates fixed in G.O.Ms.No.51, MA&UDD, dated 05-02-1996 for the areas outside Municipal Corporations/Municipalities in respect of conversion of land from vacant to industrial use. He drew the attention of this court to Section 2(e) of the Andhra Pradesh Urban Areas (Development) Act,1975 (for brevity “the Act”), which reads as follows:- Sec.2 Definitions:- In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires:- (a)…. (b)… (c)… (d).. (e) “development” with its grammatical variations means the carrying out of all or any of the works contemplated in a master plan or zonal development plan referred to in this Act, and the carrying out of building, engineering, mining or other operations in, on, over or under land, or the making of any material change in any building or land and includes re-development. Provided …………………………………… 9. A perusal of Section 2(e) of the Act shows that the word “development” is given a broad meaning including within its purview the “re-development” also. The proviso indicates certain operations or uses of land which are not deemed to involve development of the land and the sale of the vacant land for the purpose of future industrial operation is not one of the exempted categories. Further, Section 16 of the Act exempts the application of the provisions to certain activities. The proviso indicates certain operations or uses of land which are not deemed to involve development of the land and the sale of the vacant land for the purpose of future industrial operation is not one of the exempted categories. Further, Section 16 of the Act exempts the application of the provisions to certain activities. As per Sec.13(4) of the Act, in respect of the activities other than those mentioned in Section 16, every person or body including a department of the Government shall only undertake the activity of the development of the land after permission for such development has been obtained in writing from the authority in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Under Subsection 7 of Section 13 of the Act no development of land shall be undertaken or carried out unless approval of sanction for such development has been obtained in writing from the local authority concerned (APIIC in the instant case). The procedure for making an application is provided in Section 14 of the Act and sub-section 2 thereof says that the said application should be accompanied by such fee as may be prescribed. Section 27 of the Act empowers the authority to levy charges on the institution or use or change of use of land or building or development of any land or building for which permission is required under the Act. Section 28 of the Act provides for rates of development and Section 29 of the Act provides for assessment and recovery of development charges. The Urban Development Authority (Hyderabad) Rules, 1977 which were framed under Rule 15 deal with the fee payable on application for permission of development of land. 10. Hence a conjoint reading of the provisions of the Act and Rules made thereunder make it clear that no development of the land shall take place without the permission of the local authority concerned and the local authority can demand fee for the said purpose. The Urban Development Authority (Hyderabad) Rules, 1975 came into force from 21-04-1977 and need was felt to enhance the rates of developmental charges in 1995. Accordingly G.O.Ms.No.51, M.A. dated 05-02-1996 was issued fixing the developmental charges to be levied under Section 28 of the Act read with Rule 15(6) of the Urban Development Authority Rules, 1975. The Urban Development Authority (Hyderabad) Rules, 1975 came into force from 21-04-1977 and need was felt to enhance the rates of developmental charges in 1995. Accordingly G.O.Ms.No.51, M.A. dated 05-02-1996 was issued fixing the developmental charges to be levied under Section 28 of the Act read with Rule 15(6) of the Urban Development Authority Rules, 1975. According to the said order, in respect of the areas out side Municipal Corporation/Municipalities for conversion of land from vacant to industrial use a rate @ Rs.10/- per square meter was proposed. The Respondents accordingly directed the Petitioner for payment of Rs.81,740/- in respect of piece of the land to the extent of 4000.42 sq.mts which is sought to be sub-divided and sold to another in order to process further action for issuance of approval for subdivision of the land by the Corporation. In view of the earlier orders of this Court, the Respondents were careful enough to pass a detailed order. Howeever it was stated that G.O.Ms.No.150 dated 27-2-2001 is not applicable for the purpose of subdivision of lands in sanctioned layout plan which falls under the jurisdiction of Urban Development Authority. Hence, in view of the provisions of the Act and Rules made thereunder it cannot be held that the Respondents are incompetent to collect the fee nor the act of selling the balance vacant land originally purchased by the Petitioner for industrial purpose would not come within the definition of “development”. A reading of the provisions make it clear that any activity of causing material change in any building or land including re-development would come within the definition of “development” and the person who applies to the authorities seeking permission has to pay the prescribed fee. 11. The next question that remains is whether charging an amount of Rs.10/- per square meter based on the measurement of the entire land is justified in the circumstances or not? Admittedly, a factory was established in the land originally purchased and an extent of 4000.42 sq.mts remained vacant and sought to be sold to some third party by the Petitioner. The development, if any, would take place only in respect of the vacant land but not to the land over which the factory was already constructed. Admittedly, a factory was established in the land originally purchased and an extent of 4000.42 sq.mts remained vacant and sought to be sold to some third party by the Petitioner. The development, if any, would take place only in respect of the vacant land but not to the land over which the factory was already constructed. In the case of material change to the said factory, the authorities would definitely insist for payment of the developmental charges again and it is unjust and arbitrary to calculate the amount of developmental charges on the total extent of land of 8174 sq.mts in respect of the land of 4000.42 sq.mts now proposed to be sold. The Respondents can collect the development charges only on the extent of the land proposed to be sold but not on the total extent of the land purchased by the Petitioner from the Respondents originally. 12. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is partly allowed and the Respondents are directed to refund the proportionate amount to the Petitioner since they have already collected an amount of Rs.81,740/- pursuant to the interim order of this Court dated 14-12-2004 in WPMP No.28741 of 2004. No costs.