ORDER : Laxmi Narayana Alishetty, J. This writ petition is filed to declare the proceedings dated 21.04.2014 and 19.12.2013 issued by the 2 nd respondent, as arbitrary and illegal being contrary to the terms of G.O.Ms.No.118, MA and UD Department, dated 16.02.2009, and also to declare the Circular dated 19.03.2009, 10.03.2010 and condition No.9 of approval dated 21.02.2009, as arbitrary and illegal and for consequential reliefs. 2. Heard Sri Hari Sreedhar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Siddhartha, learned counsel representing Sri V.Narasimha Goud, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner submitted application dated 04.08.2008 seeking permission for development of land admeasuring 46,793.62 Square Meters in Sy.Nos.485-491, 492/3 and 496 of Madhavaram Village, Jinnaram Mandal, Medak District; that respondent No.2 vide letter dated 25.09.2008 informed the petitioner to pay development charges @ 40/- per square meter as per G.O.Ms.No.439, MA and UD Department dated 13.06.2007, along with processing charges @ Rs.2/- per square meter and publication charges of Rs.5,000/-, in total amounting to Rs.19,09,301/-. Accordingly, the petitioner paid the said amount. 4. While so, the State Government issued G.O.Ms.No.118, Municipal Administration and Urban Development (II) Department, dated 16.02.2009, reducing the development charges to Rs.10/-per square meter from Rs.40/- per square meter. 5. The respondent No.2 vide letter L.P.No.14/LO/Plg/HMDA/ 2009, dated 21.02.2009, approved the draft development plan to an extent of 46,383.62 square meters subject to the conditions mentioned therein, which was signed on 26.02.2009. In the said letter at condition No.9 it was mentioned that the development works should be completed within a period of one year from the date of the approval, though the statute provides three years period. 6. On 19.03.2009, the respondent No.2 issued a Circular stating that any layout approved by it on or after 16.02.2009 will be entitled to get the benefit of reduced rates as per G.O.Ms.118, dated 16.02.2009. 7. On 25.05.2011, the respondent No.2 addressed letter asking the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.45,000/- to extend the period for completing the development works up to 20.02.2012, and on payment of said amount, time to complete the development works was extended till 20.02.2012 by respondent No.2 vide its letter dated 18.06.2011. 8. 7. On 25.05.2011, the respondent No.2 addressed letter asking the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.45,000/- to extend the period for completing the development works up to 20.02.2012, and on payment of said amount, time to complete the development works was extended till 20.02.2012 by respondent No.2 vide its letter dated 18.06.2011. 8. On 03.11.2012, the respondent No.2 issued office order clarifying the time period for carrying out development works as three years and the same can be extended for another period of three years, annually, on payment of Rs.20% of the total amount paid per each year. 9. The petitioner completed all the development works by March, 2013 and addressed letter dated 15.04.2013 to the respondent No.2 requesting to release the final layout and also the mortgaged plots by duly enclosing photographs evidencing completion of development works. In response to the said letter, respondent No.2 issued a letter dated 19.12.2013 informing the petitioner to pay revalidation charges of Rs.11,45,583/- for extension of said period for another 3 years @ 20% per year on the total amount, since the petitioner could not complete the development works within a period of 3 years. 10. In response to the letter dated 19.12.2013, the petitioner submitted detailed representation dated 07.02.2014 informing the respondent No.2 that initially the draft layout was approved for one year i.e. up to 20.02.2010, contrary to Section 21 of the Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority Act, 2008, which stipulates time period for completion of development works as three years. Therefore, the revalidation charges of Rs.11,45,583/- sought for by the respondent No.2 would be incorrect and in fact, the petitioner is liable to pay a sum of Rs.7,86,265/- which includes development charges of Rs.4,63,836/- @ Rs.10/- per square meter as per G.O.Ms.No.118, dated 16.02.2009, Rs.2,24,662/- towards extension of validation up to 20.02.2014 @ 20% on the total amount per each year, Rs.5,000/- for publication charges and Rs.92,767/- towards processing fee @ Rs.2/- per square meter. The petitioner requested respondent No.2 to release the final lay out and mortgaged plots without any further payments and for refund of the excess amounts collected from it. 11. However, respondent No.2 issued letter dated 21.04.2014 informing the petitioner that the request of the petitioner made through its letter dated 07.02.2014, cannot be considered. Aggrieved by the same, present writ petition is filed. 12. 11. However, respondent No.2 issued letter dated 21.04.2014 informing the petitioner that the request of the petitioner made through its letter dated 07.02.2014, cannot be considered. Aggrieved by the same, present writ petition is filed. 12. Learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the State Government through G.O.Ms.No.118, dated 16.02.2009 reduced the development charges from Rs.40/- per square meter to Rs.10/- per square meter; and that the respondent No.2 issued Circular dated 19.03.2009 stating that any layout approved by the respondent No.2 on or after 16.02.2009 is entitled to get the benefit of reduced rates as per G.O.Ms.No.118. He further submits that the respondent No.2 approved the draft layout of the petitioner on 21.02.2009 i.e., after issuance of G.O.Ms.No.118 dated 16.02.2009. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to get the benefit of reduced rates as per G.O.Ms.No.118, dated 16.02.2009 @ Rs.10/-per square meter. 13. He further submits that as per Section 21 of the HMDA Act, 2008, every development permission granted under the said Act shall remain valid for three years, and in the present case, respondent No.2 while approving draft lay out plan on 21.02.2009, granted only one year i.e. up to 20.02.2010 for completion of development works. He further submits that as per Section 21 of the HMDA Act, 2008, respondent No.2 ought to have granted permission for three years i.e. from 21.02.2009 to 20.02.2012 for completion of development works; that since the petitioner completed the development works in March, 2013, and intimated to the respondent No.2 on 15.04.2013, the petitioner is required to seek extension of development plan for two more years only. 14. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the Judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority v. D.Rajan Dev and others ,(2020) 2 Supreme Court Cases 483 wherein it is held that rates prevailing as on the date of approval only has to be considered and not the date of filing application. The Apex Court further held that until and unless an application is approved in all respects, it remains a mere application and no right can be claimed on the basis of such an application. 15. By relying on the above Judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the rates prevailing at the time of granting approval are the rates which an applicant has to pay. 15. By relying on the above Judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the rates prevailing at the time of granting approval are the rates which an applicant has to pay. By contending so, the learned counsel for petitioner prayed to allow the writ petition directing the respondents to refund the amount which was paid in excess by the petitioner. 16. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel for Respondent No.2 would submit that there is no dispute that petitioner submitted the application on 04.08.2008 and paid development charges @ Rs.40/- per square meter. Admittedly, the draft lay out was approved on 21.02.2009 by duly considering the development charges paid by the petitioner as per G.O.Ms.No.439, dated 13.06.2007 which was in force as on the date of submission of application by the petitioner. He further submits that G.O.Ms.No.118, dated 16.02.2009 has no application since the petitioner submitted application prior to issuance of G.O.Ms.No.118. 17. Learned Standing Counsel for Respondent No.2 also submits that the Judgment referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner has no application to the present facts of the case since in the said case, there was a mistake on the part of authority in calculating the extent of total area, and therefore, the Hon’ble Apex Court considering the said aspect, only, has observed that while calculating the development charges, date of approval of application has to be considered and not the date of application. Since the facts and circumstances of the case relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner are different with that of the present case, the same has no application to the present case. 18. Insofar as the revalidation charges are concerned, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2 would submit that G.O.Ms.No.118 was issued on 16.02.2009 and draft layout was approved on 21.02.2009, whereas the petitioner approached this Court in the year 2014, therefore, on the ground of delay and latches, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. 19. Learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2 also submits that in view of interim orders passed by this Court on 30.07.2021, the respondent No.2 released final layout on 10.06.2022 basing on the relinquishment deed dated 19.03.2022 executed by the petitioner and finally prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 20. 19. Learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2 also submits that in view of interim orders passed by this Court on 30.07.2021, the respondent No.2 released final layout on 10.06.2022 basing on the relinquishment deed dated 19.03.2022 executed by the petitioner and finally prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 20. In the light of the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2, the following points raise for consideration. 1) Whether the petitioner is entitled to get the benefit of G.O.Ms.No.118, dated 16.02.2009 or petitioner has to pay the development charges as per G.O.Ms.No.439, dated 13.06.2007 which was in force as on the date of filing application. 2) Whether the revalidation charges are payable from21.02.2010 or from 21.02.2012. 21. Point No.1:- i) There is no dispute with regard to the date of application i.e., 04.08.2008, date of approval of draft lay out i.e. 21.02.2009, and issuance of G.O.Ms.No.118, dated 16.02.2009. The petitioner paid development charges @ Rs.40/- per square meter on 15.10.2008 as per G.O.Ms.No.439, dated 13.06.2007. ii) In Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority case (supra), the Honourable Apex Court considering various aspects has categorically held as follows; “Held, mere pendency of the application for planning permission does not create a vested right in an applicant and right accrues only when the permission/sanction is granted by the Government/authorities concerned. Further, until and unless an application complete in all respects is approved, it remains a mere application and no right can be claimed on the basis of such an application. Thus, the rates prevailing at the time of granting of permission are the rates which an applicant has to pay.” iii) In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, while levying charges, the rates prevailing as on the date of granting approval/permission are to be considered, and not the rates prevailing as on the date of submission of application. iv) In the present case, admittedly, Respondent No.2 approved the draft lay out plan of the petitioner to an extent of 46,383.62 square meters on 21.02.2009 which is subsequent to issuance of G.O.Ms.No.118, dated 16.02.2009. Therefore, by virtue of the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, the development charges have to be levied as per G.O.Ms.118, dated 16.02.2009, only, since the said G.O. was prevailing as on the date of approving draft lay out i.e., on 21.02.2009. Therefore, by virtue of the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, the development charges have to be levied as per G.O.Ms.118, dated 16.02.2009, only, since the said G.O. was prevailing as on the date of approving draft lay out i.e., on 21.02.2009. Therefore, the petitioner is liable to pay development charges as per G.O.Ms.No.118, dated 16.02.2009, which was prevailing as on date of granting approval. 22. Point No.2: i) Insofar as the revalidation charges are concerned, it is appropriate to refer to Section 21 of the Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority Act, 2008, which reads as follows; “21. Every Development Permission granted under this Act shall remain valid for three years during which time the development works/layouts works/and civil works shall be completed and if not completed, such permission shall be got revalidated on application subject to the rules then in force and on payment of 20% of the fees and charges.” ii) A bare reading of Section 21 of the HMDA Act, 2008 mandates that the time period for completion of development works shall be three years. In the present case, admittedly, the draft lay out was approved on 21.02.2009 granting only one year period for completion of development works, contrary to Section 21 of the HMDA Act, 2008. iii) In fact, respondent No.2 vide its office note dated 03.11.2012 clarified that the period within which the development works have to be completed is 3 years, which can be extended for another period of 3 years, on a yearly basis, on payment of 20% of the total amount paid for each year, in consonance with Section 21 of the HMDA, Act, 2008. Therefore, respondent No.2 while granting approval of lay out on 21.02.2009, erred and is not justified in granting only one year for completion of development works, contrary to Section 21 of the HMDA, Act, 2008. iv) As per Section 21 of the Act, 2008, the respondent No.2 while granting lay out permission ought to have granted a period of three years i.e. up to 21.02.2012 for completion of development works instead of one year i.e. up to 21.02.2010. Since the petitioner completed development works by March, 2013 and intimated the same to respondent No.2 on 15.04.2013, the petitioner is required to seek extension of development plan for two more years i.e. from 21.02.2012 to 21.02.2014 @ 20% on total amount payable by the petitioner. 23. Since the petitioner completed development works by March, 2013 and intimated the same to respondent No.2 on 15.04.2013, the petitioner is required to seek extension of development plan for two more years i.e. from 21.02.2012 to 21.02.2014 @ 20% on total amount payable by the petitioner. 23. In the said facts and circumstances, Writ Petition is allowed holding that the petitioner is liable to pay the charges as under: i) development charges as per G.O.Ms.No.118, dated 16.02.2009, at the rate of Rs.10/- per square meter on the approved land to the extent of 46383.62 square meters which was prevailing as on date of granting approval. ii) revalidation charges from 21.02.2012 to 21.02.2014 at 20% on the total amount payable by the petitioner, along with processing charges and publication charges which are not in dispute. 24. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the writ petition, shall stand closed.