ORDER : HARINATH.N, J. 1. The petitioner is challenging the VLT Special notice dated 22.03.2017, whereby the 2 nd respondent called upon the petitioner to pay the vacant land tax for the property of the petitioner and consequently seeks a direction to declare the issuance of the said notice as without jurisdiction, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice. 2. Sri.C.V.Mohan Reddy, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the owner of land admeasuring 14990 Square yards in N.T.S.No.71 situated at Mogalrajapuram, Vijayawada. 3. It is submitted that the 2 nd respondent could not have issued the impugned notice calling upon the petitioner to pay the vacant land tax without any adjudication. It is also submitted that land admeasuring Ac.3.26 cents was earmarked for recreation use as per the Master Plan. In the remaining extent of land the petitioner had constructed sheds they were assessed for property tax and that the petitioner is paying taxes regularly without any arrears. 4. Learned senior counsel submits that once the area is earmarked for recreation use, the same cannot be considered as vacant land under Section 212 (2) of the Municipal Corporations Act, 1955. It is submitted that the petitioner had submitted a representation seeking change of land use from residential and recreational (Park) use to commercial use. It is submitted that the Commissioner of APCRDA addressed a letter to the DCP (Traffic) for submitting an assessment report on the impact of the proposed change of land use from the Traffic point of view. The DCP (Traffic) vide proceedings dated 08.02.2017 communicated to the Commissioner, CRDA that the property of the petitioner has access to the road from three sides of the petitioner’s property and informed the no objection to issue NOC for conversion of the site into a commercial site. These proceedings were issued on receipt of the proposal from the 2 nd respondent seeking the impact assessment report from the concerned departments. 5. Learned senior counsel further submits that the 2 nd respondent had passed a resolution for conversion of the subject land and issued an endorsement dated 03.06.2017 requiring the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.7,30,480/- towards processing fee for change of land use from residential and recreation (Park) to commercial usage. 6. 5. Learned senior counsel further submits that the 2 nd respondent had passed a resolution for conversion of the subject land and issued an endorsement dated 03.06.2017 requiring the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.7,30,480/- towards processing fee for change of land use from residential and recreation (Park) to commercial usage. 6. The respondent authorities instead of processing the file for conversion of the land use as was agreed to have been insisting on the petitioner for payment of vacant land tax. The learned senior counsel further submits that the respondents cannot be justified in demanding payment of vacant land tax for an area which was earmarked for the park in the Master Plan and that the respondent authorities had included the property of the petitioner for residential and recreational (Park) purpose without issuing any notice or consent of the petitioner. 7. It is further submitted that the Commissioner, APCRDA vide proceedings dated 08.06.2018 had approved and published in the Gazette. The petitioner filed WP.Nos.44066 of 2018 challenging the inaction on part of the 2 nd respondent in entertaining the petitioner’s application for grant of permission for construction of building. Thereafter, the petitioner filed WP.No.13893 of 2021 challenging the action of the respondents in demanding the arrears of the vacant land tax for accepting the application of the petitioner for construction of the building. 8. It is submitted that this Court disposed off both the writ petitions by a common order dated 06.10.2021 leaving it open for adjudication of demand for vacant land tax arrears in the present writ petition and also directing the 2 nd respondent to raise the demand for vacant land tax with effect from 04.06.2018 and after payment of the said amount the 2 nd respondent was directed to grant the permission for construction of the building. 9. It is also submitted that the petitioner filed WP.No.7027 of 2023 seeking interest waiver on the demanded vacant land tax and the additional tax to a tune of Rs.24,94,881/-. The writ petition was disposed off considering the submission of petitioner that the petitioner is willing to pay the vacant land tax of Rs.1,49,90,000/- as per the demand made in the special notice dated 10.01.2022. The remaining liability towards the arrears of tax is to be ascertained by this Court in the present writ petition. The writ petition was disposed off considering the submission of petitioner that the petitioner is willing to pay the vacant land tax of Rs.1,49,90,000/- as per the demand made in the special notice dated 10.01.2022. The remaining liability towards the arrears of tax is to be ascertained by this Court in the present writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition was disposed off on 24.03.2023 directing the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.1,49,90,000/- towards vacant land tax. 10. Learned standing counsel for the 2 nd respondent submits that the petitioner has failed to submit any document in support of the claim that the land of the petitioner was earmarked for recreational purposes as per the Master Plan and that the subject vacant land is in possession and enjoyment of the petitioner. 11. It is submitted that the 2 nd respondent is entitled to levy vacant land tax under Section 212 of Municipal Corporations Act, 1955 and the petitioner is liable to pay the vacant land tax and the present writ petition is filed only to drag on the payment of the arrears of tax. 12. Heard the learned senior counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the 2 nd respondent. Perused the material on record. 13. The short point for consideration is whether the impugned proceedings calling upon the petitioner to pay vacant land tax for the period 2013-2016 sustain the scrutiny of law and whether the petitioner would be liable for payment of the vacant land tax as demanded by the 2 nd respondent. 14. As seen from the record, the petitioner submitted a representation on 31.03.2015 seeking change of land use from residential cum recreational (Park) use to commercial use for land admeasuring 14990 square yards. The 2 nd respondent forwarded the proposal to Commissioner, APCRDA on 27.05.2015. 15. The Commissioner, APCRDA called for impact assessment report from the DCP (Traffic) and the DCP (Traffic) had vide communication dated 08.02.2017 submitted a report and a no objection from the Traffic point of view for conversion of the land of the petitioner for commercial use was communicated. 16. These proceedings make it amply clear that steps were initiated from the respondent side for conversion of use of the land of the petitioner. 16. These proceedings make it amply clear that steps were initiated from the respondent side for conversion of use of the land of the petitioner. It is also not in dispute that the respondents have not pointed out any reservations raised from the respondent point of view for considering conversion of land use. The correspondence placed before this Court also does not indicate any objection on the respondent point of view for considering the conversion of land use of the petitioner. 17. The 2 nd respondent vide endorsement dated 03.06.2017 called upon the petitioner to pay the processing fee of Rs.7,30,480/- for change of land use. On 08.06.2018, the Commissioner, APCRDA approved the change of land use from residential cum recreational (Park) use to commercial use. 18. The petitioner also challenged the levy of vacant land tax along with interest from 2018 onwards. Considering the willingness of the petitioner to pay the principle amount of vacant land tax of Rs.1,49,90,000/-, the writ petition filed by the petitioner was disposed off leaving it open for adjudicating on the entitlement of claim for vacant land tax for the period prior to conversion of the land in the present writ petition. 19. Admittedly, the land of the petitioner was earmarked for residential cum recreational (Park) purposes prior to conversion effective from 08.06.2018. In such circumstances, vacant land tax could not have been levied for a land earmarked for recreational purposes. It is a different matter altogether whether the said land was put to use for recreational purpose (Park) or for any other public purpose as devised and planned in the Master Plan. 20. Until and unless the land was converted as requested by the petitioner, the petitioner also could not have put to use the extent of land earmarked for recreational (Park) purposes. In such scenario there is no justifying in levying the vacant land tax for the period during which the petitioner could utilize the land for any other purposes nor could the petitioner offer it to sale to any third party. The petitioner thus was incapacitated from using the said land till the same was converted to commercial use. 21. The stand taken by the 2 nd respondent in the counter is contrary to the record. The petitioner thus was incapacitated from using the said land till the same was converted to commercial use. 21. The stand taken by the 2 nd respondent in the counter is contrary to the record. The 2 nd respondent claims that the petitioner has not submitted any record to establish that the land of the petitioner was earmarked for recreational (park) use. If that is to be taken into consideration, there is no explanation for the proceedings dated 27.05.2015 issued by the 2 nd respondent and the endorsement dated 03.06.2017 calling upon the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.7,34,480/-, so also, the proceedings dated 08.06.2018 issued by the Commissioner, APCRDA approving the conversion of land use from residential cum recreation (park) use to commercial use. 22. This Court finds no justification in levying vacant land tax for the period during which the petitioner could not have put the land to any use while the same was earmarked for residential cum recreational (Park) use until conversion of the same in the year 2018. 23. Accordingly the impugned proceedings issued vide the special notice No.26/C3/2016-2017/2, dated 22.03.2017 issued by the 2 nd respondent are hereby set aside as they are issued without jurisdiction and accordingly the writ petition is allowed without costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.