ORDER : 1. The present Writ Petition is filed inter alia, aggrieved by the Condition Nos.15 & 17 imposed in the Communication dated 30.11.2009 while granting “Technical Approval” to the petitioner for Construction of a Warehouse Shed and the demand for producing the Mortgage Deed and payment of Rs.42,85,450/- towards 14% open space charges as per G.O.Ms.No. 902, Municipal Administration & Urban Development (M1) Department, Dated 31.12.2007 vide Endorsement dated 01.06.2010 issued by the 1st respondent, to declare the same as invalid, in-operative, non-est in Law apart from seeking other reliefs. 2. The brief facts as per the averments made in the Writ Affidavit may be narrated for better appreciation of the case as follows: The Writ Petitioner is a Company established under the provisions of the Companies Act and engaged in multifarious businesses, including Fast Moving Consumer Goods (FMCG) Business across the Country. It owns lands in Chilakaluripet, Guntur District of an extent of 37336.67 Sq. Mtrs., forming part of Survey Nos.130/C1B, 133/A, 140/AA and 140/AB1. It submitted an application dated 02.04.2009 to the 1st respondent-Municipality seeking permission/approval for Construction of a Warehouse in an extent of 17,531 Sq. Mtrs., out of the above mentioned land. The 1st respondent-Municipality forwarded the file of the petitioner to the Director of Town and Country Planning/the 2nd respondent herein for necessary “Technical Approval” and the 3rd respondent i.e., The Joint Director of Town and Country Planning accorded “Technical Approval” for Construction of a Warehouse by stipulating various conditions, including Condition No. 15 to mortgage 10% of the total built up area and Condition No. 17 requiring the petitioner to pay 14% open space charges as per G.O.Ms.No. 902, dated 31.12.2007, before release of plans of the proposed Warehouse Shed. Subsequently, the 1st respondent-Municipality with reference to the “Technical Approval” dated 30.11.2009 and the Conditions imposed therein, called upon the petitioner to comply with certain requirements as set out in the Endorsement dated 01.06.2010 including submission of Mortgage Deed and payment of Rs.42,85,450/-. 3. Heard Mr.Ghanta Rama Rao, Learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr.G.V.S.Ganesh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and the Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respective respondents. 4. 3. Heard Mr.Ghanta Rama Rao, Learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr.G.V.S.Ganesh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Learned Government Pleader for Municipal Administration and the Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respective respondents. 4. The Learned Senior Counsel submits that pursuant to the “Technical Approval” dated 30.11.2009, the petitioner constructed the Warehouse and an “Occupancy Certificate” was also issued as there were no deviations and in view of the same, Condition No. 15 imposed while granting “Technical Approval” on 30.11.2009 need not be examined. He submits that the other Condition No. 17 as to whether the petitioner has to pay 14% open space charges as per G.O.Ms.No. 902 dated 31.12.2007 is the only issue, which is required to be adjudicated. He submits that the said G.O is not applicable to the Construction of Warehouse made by the petitioner and that the G.O was intended for Regulation of un-approved and illegal layouts and accordingly Rules were provided there under. Drawing the attention of this Court to the relevant aspects of the said G.O, the learned counsel would submit that when there is a demarcation of land, which is sought to be converted as sites/plots, then open space is required to be provided. He submits that in the present case, the petitioner made construction i.e., Warehouse in its own land and there is no layout nor the land was sought to be disposed of as House Sites. He submits that as G.O.Ms.No. 902, dated 31.12.2007 is not applicable to the case of the petitioner, imposition of Condition No. 17 while granting “Technical Approval” and the subsequent demand for payment of the amount mentioned above through the Communication dated 01.06.2010, is also not sustainable. The learned counsel also places reliance on the decision of the erstwhile Common High Court for the State of Telangana and for the State of Andhra Pradesh in Gail India Ltd., Rajahmundry, East Godavari District vs. Municipal Corporation of Rajahmundry, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District, 2015 (2) ALD 125 and submits that in the light of the said decision, the demand as raised by the 1st respondent-Municipality is liable to be set aside. With reference to the provisions of A.P. Municipalities Act viz., Section 184, the Learned Counsel would also submit that if the land is sought to be made as plots, then permission is required. With reference to the provisions of A.P. Municipalities Act viz., Section 184, the Learned Counsel would also submit that if the land is sought to be made as plots, then permission is required. He submits that in the present case, there is no division of plots and land was utilized for construction of Warehouse. 5. Opposing the said submissions, the Learned Government Pleader contends that “Prior Approval” for construction is required in terms of the provisions of the Municipalities Act, that the petitioner constructed godowns, which were existing in the site in question wherein the Warehouse was sought to be constructed, without “Prior Approval” for the said godowns and therefore the petitioner is required to pay the amount as per the demand made by the Municipality. She accordingly prays for dismissal of the Writ Petition. Learned Standing Counsel made submissions in similar lines. 6. Considered the submissions made and perused the material on record. 7. As the controversy is mainly with regard to the imposition of condition No. 17 while granting “Technical Approval” for construction of Warehouse with reference to G.O.Ms.No. 902 dated 31.12.2007, it would be appropriate to deal with the said G.O. Government of Andhra Pradesh with a view to promote planned development of urban areas in the State and encourage development through approved layouts and development of integrated townships through both public and private initiative issued G.O.Ms.No. 902, dated 31.12.2007. Government, noticing that there are many un-approved and illegal layouts which are not only in violation of the Statutory Development Plan/Master Plan and Layout Rules, as also deficiencies in layout norms and development standards and lack of basic civic infrastructure facilities like proper roads, street lights and drainages, through the said G.O made “The Andhra Pradesh Regulation of Unapproved and Illegal Layout Rules, 2007.” As per Rule 2(ii), the Rules and Conditions therein are applicable to all existing unapproved sub-division of plots, existing unapproved layouts or ventures promoted by land owners/private developers/firms/companies/property developers/ Societies where the plots have been sold by registered sale deeds before the date of notification of the said Rules. Rule 3 deals with definitions and as per Rule 3(i) “unapproved/illegal layout” means “sub-division of land into plots with or without developed roads, open spaces and amenities and without the approval of the competent authority.” In terms of Rule 6, it shall be compulsory for all the plot owners in unapproved layouts to file an application in the prescribed format for regulation of the plot/layout before the Competent Authority to apply for regulation for plots having registered sale deed executed prior to the date of notification of the Rules within 60 days from the date of notification of the Rules, duly enclosing the relevant documents referred to therein. Rule 10 deals with “Norms to be insisted for regulation of unapproved layouts” and stipulates that the Competent Authority shall ensure the minimum norms of layout for such layouts: (a) The road width shall be minimum 9 m in case of weaker section layouts or plots less than 100 sq.m the road width may be 6 m. (b) 10% Open space to be insisted or reserve equivalent land within their site by readjusting the plots. Where such open space is not provided in such unapproved layout sites, pro rata open space charge as per the present prevailing market value based on sub-registrar records shall be collected. (c) …….. (d) …….. (e) …….. (f) ………. A reading of the above said Rules would go to show that the Rules made under G.O.Ms.No. 902, dated 31.12.2007 are applicable when there is subdivision of land/site into the plots with or without developed roads, open spaces and amenities and without approval of the Competent Authority. 8. In the present case, there is no sub-division of land, much less, by making it into plots/sites, but the petitioner was contemplating to construct Warehouse and it is not the case of the respondents that the petitioner was making constructions by dividing the land into plots and for the use of individual plot owners or the construction is in an unauthorized layout either. In such circumstances, the Construction of Warehouse for its business purpose by the petitioner would not fall within the purview of G.O.Ms.No. 902, dated 31.12.2007 and application of the same to the petitioner does not arise. 9. In such circumstances, the Construction of Warehouse for its business purpose by the petitioner would not fall within the purview of G.O.Ms.No. 902, dated 31.12.2007 and application of the same to the petitioner does not arise. 9. In Gale India Ltd. case referred to supra, a Learned Judge of the erstwhile Common High Court for the State of Telangana and for the State of Andhra Pradesh was dealing with a case with reference to G.O.Ms.No. 65, M.A & U.D (M1) Department, dated 05.02.1987, issued by the Government providing certain guidelines to the Municipal Corporation/Urban Development Authority for follow up action and to arrest the growth of un-authorised layouts and sub-divisions of land made without approval. In the said case, the petitioner therein purchased the land of an extent of Ac.5.00 cents for the purpose of Construction of Administrative Office Complex and Staff Quarters. Certain amounts were levied and sought to be recovered towards development charges with reference to the said G.O. The Learned Judge with reference to the Construction of Administrative Office Complex and Staff Quarters by the petitioner therein inter-alia opined that the said land is not open to the public and in fact after Construction of Administrative Office Complex, a proposal was put forward before the respondent for Construction of Township and therefore no layout is involved in the said case. Learned Judge also held, in the facts and circumstances of the said case, that when there is no necessity for sanctioning a layout, the collection of betterment charges is unwarranted. 10. Be that as it may. The subject matter land even as per the Communication of the 1st respondent dated 06.11.2009 to The Regional Deputy Director, Town & Country Planning, Guntur, is situated in “Commercial Zone” as per approved Master Plan. The relevant portion of the said Letter reads thus: “I am to submit that the subject is placed before Council Resolved vide C.R.No. 723, Dt.30.10.2009 to request the Director of Town & Country Planning, Hyderabad the Competent Authority as per Zoning Regulations for issuing permission to applicant M/s I.T.C. ILTD Division, for the construction ware house sheds in Commercial Zone as per approved Master Plan.” 11. No material is available on record to establish that the petitioner under the guise of Construction of Warehouse has undertaken any activity of subdivision of land into plots with or without developed roads, open spaces and amenities and without the approval of the Competent Authority to attract the definition “unapproved/illegal layout” in terms of G.O.Ms.No. 902, dated 31.12.2007. In such circumstances, imposition of Condition No. 17 in terms of G.O.Ms.No. 902, dated 31.12.2007 is unjust, arbitrary and unsustainable. Accordingly, the said Condition as imposed in the “Technical Approval” vide Letter dated 30.11.2009 is declared illegal. As a consequence, no amount towards 14% open charges in terms of condition No. 17, need be paid by the petitioner. 12. One more aspect which may perhaps be dealt with by this Court, is with regard to the stand taken by the respondents on the basis of G.O.Ms.No. 901, dated 31.12.2007. 13. According to them, the petitioner constructed godowns without prior approval and ought to have regularized the constructions/godowns in terms of the Building Penalization Scheme (BPS) issued vide G.O.Ms.No. 901, Municipal Administration & Urban Development (M1) Department, dated 31.12.2007, the same was not done and as the construction of Warehouse was contemplated where the godowns were existing, proportionate open space charges are levied. Such a stand, in the considered opinion of this Court is not sustainable. On the pretext of the same, the petitioner cannot be made liable to pay the amount towards 14% open space charges in terms of G.O.Ms.No. 902, dated 31.12.2007. Firstly, if the petitioner made construction of some godowns without approval, the respondents should have initiated action at the relevant point of time and levied charges in terms of the said G.O.Ms.No. 901, dated 31.12.2007. Even assuming that such charges are leviable, having failed to raise the demand, the respondents cannot seek to collect the same or justify the stand as taken in the Counter. Even assuming that such charges are leviable, having failed to raise the demand, the respondents cannot seek to collect the same or justify the stand as taken in the Counter. Secondly, as is evident from the record, condition No. 17 in the “Technical Approval” granted to the petitioner dated 30.11.2009 refers to G.O.Ms.No. 902, M.A., dated 31.12.2007 and the consequential Endorsement dated 01.06.2010 of the 1st respondent specifically stipulates that “Rs.42,85,450/- amount towards 14% open space charges as per G.O.Ms.No. 902, M.A., dated 31.12.2007 has to be paid.” Therefore, the plea taken by the respondents with reference to the said G.O.Ms.No. 901, M.A., dated 31.12.2007 for the first time in the Counter Affidavit cannot be appreciated and the same is rejected. Further, as concluded above, imposition of Condition No. 17 with reference to G.O.Ms.No. 902, dated 31.12.2007 itself is illegal. Therefore, demand of Rs.42,85,450/- from the petitioner on the basis of the said G.O is unjust, not sustainable and accordingly, the same is set aside. 14. In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed in part as indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending applications if any shall stand closed.