ORDER : (T. VINOD KUMAR, J.) Heard Sri Vedula Venkataramana, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri Peri Prabhakar, learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondents and perused the record. 2. The petitioners by the present Writ Petition has assailed the action of 1st respondent authority in issuing letter dated 25.11.2008 whereby the 1 st respondent had sought to levy a sum of Rs.25,54,430/- as “Layout Regularization Scheme Charges” for considering the application made by the petitioners for construction of two additional blocks of residential flats of five floors each in Sy. Nos.93, 94 and 95 situated at Mallapur village, Kapra, Ranga Reddy District, as extension to the existing group housing scheme, as arbitrary and illegal with a consequential direction to the respondents to refund the aforementioned amount paid by the petitioners along with 18% interest per annum. 3. It is the case of the petitioners that initially it had purchased land admeasuring Ac.4.00 gts. in Sy. Nos.93, 94 and 95 of Mallapur village, Kapra, Ranga Reddy District and had constructed five apartment blocks under group housing scheme by obtaining necessary construction/building permission from the 1 st respondent without any deviation. 4. It is the further case of the petitioners that subsequently it had acquired the adjoining land admeasuring Ac.1.18 gts. in the same survey numbers with an objective to extend the same group housing scheme by constructing two other similar blocks of residential apartment and thus, approached the 1 st respondent and submitted application dated 26.04.2008 seeking permission for construction of proposed two residential apartment blocks as an extension to the existing five blocks already constructed by it. 5. Petitioners further contend that the 1st respondent while considering the aforesaid application made by it seeking permission for construction of additional block consisting of two apartment blocks by its letter dated 25.01.2008 had called upon the petitioners to pay a sum of Rs.55,00,205/- under various heads for granting permission for construction of additional blocks. 6. Petitioners further contend that in the aforesaid letter issued by the 1st respondent demanding the aforesaid payment to be made by it for considering the application submitted seeking permission, the 1 st respondent had demanded a sum of Rs.25,54,430/- under the head “Layout Regularization Scheme Charges”. 7. 6. Petitioners further contend that in the aforesaid letter issued by the 1st respondent demanding the aforesaid payment to be made by it for considering the application submitted seeking permission, the 1 st respondent had demanded a sum of Rs.25,54,430/- under the head “Layout Regularization Scheme Charges”. 7. It is contended by the petitioners that on being issued with the above mentioned letter demanding payment which inter alia included component of “Layout Regularization Scheme Charges”, it had made a protest against the aforesaid levy by submitting a representation dated 30.12.2008 stating that “Layout Regularization Scheme Charges” would become payable only for such plot of land which were not having sanctioned layout as defined in G.O.Ms. No.902 Municipal Administration of Urban Development Department, dated 31.12.2007, and since the adjoining land acquired by the petitioners for construction of additional two blocks cannot be considered as unauthorized layout, the demand made under the head “Layout Regularization Scheme Charges” in the impugned proceeding is not valid. Despite the said representation and protest recorded by the petitioners, the 1 st respondent had reiterated of its demand vide letter dated 17/27.01.2009 and called upon the petitioners to make the payment of the same within seven days, failing which the file relating to the application made by the petitioners for sanction of permission would be closed. 8. Petitioners would further contend that being faced with such a situation and also the immediate requirement to obtain sanction plan for undertaking construction, it had made the payment of the amount demanded by the 1st respondent under the impugned proceeding for obtaining permission. 9. Petitioners contend that since the demand made by the 1 st respondent under the heading “Layout Rgularizatin Scheme Charges” is contrary to G.O.Ms. No.902 dated 31.12.2007 as amended by G.O.Ms. No.113 dated 31.01.2008, the petitioners have filed the present Writ Petition questioning the validity of the said levy. 10. Petitioners further contend that the levy of the amount of Rs.25,54,430/- under the heading “Layout Regularization Scheme Charges” is inapplicable to the building application made by it and the type of construction which is sought to be made as the land admeasuring Ac.1.18 gts. in Sy. 10. Petitioners further contend that the levy of the amount of Rs.25,54,430/- under the heading “Layout Regularization Scheme Charges” is inapplicable to the building application made by it and the type of construction which is sought to be made as the land admeasuring Ac.1.18 gts. in Sy. Nos.93, 94 and 95 of Mallapur village acquired by it has never been divided into plots nor the plots were sold to third parties in the form of layout and as such the 1st respondent could not have levied and demanded the aforesaid amount for considering the application made by the petitioners for sanction of building permission which is only an extension to the existing group housing scheme. 11. It is also contended by the petitioners that after undertaking the construction of residential apartment in the said land, the petitioners would only be selling the built up area covered by residential apartment and there would not be any question of plot of land and selling of the plotted land and as such selling of plotted land would not arise. 12. Petitioners further contend that the layout regularization scheme applies only when agriculture land has been divided into plots and sold and since the petitioners construction is neither based on plots or in the form of plots, the layout regularization scheme itself does not apply to the application submitted by the petitioners for sanction of building permission. 13. It is also contended on behalf of the petitioners that in terms of Section 388 of the GHMC Act, 1955, the demand under the aforesaid heading viz., Layout Regularization Scheme can only be made if the person intended to sell or let on lease any land by dividing the same into building plots for undertaking construction of building therein. Thus, the impugned levy is wholly is without authority and sanction of law. 14. Counter-affidavit on behalf of the respondents is not filed. 15. However, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents on the other hand would submit that the petitioners had obtained sanction for construction of five blocks ‘A’ to ‘E’ consisting of stilt + 5 upper floors earlier by making application to Hyderabad Urban Development Authority (HUDA) dated 22.08.2005 which application was approved by the concerned Municipality as existing then vide proceedings dated 29.09.2005 permitting construction of 16,185.83 square meters in land admeasuring Ac.4.00 gts. 16. 16. On behalf of the respondents, it is further contended that the present application made by the petitioners for grant of building permission is in respect of additional extent of land admeasuring Ac.1.18 gts. acquired by it adjoining the existing site which extent is not covered by the earlier approval. 17. On behalf of the respondents, it is also contended that the petitioners by acquiring the adjoining land admeasuring Ac.1.18 gts. are intending to construct two additional floors viz., Block ‘F’ and ‘G’ therein and as such the said construction cannot be considered as forming part of earlier approval for the petitioners to claim that there is no further development that is being undertaken by it for which it is not required to pay the amounts as demanded under the impugned proceeding. 18. On behalf of the respondents, it is also contended that since the petitioners are undertaking construction of flats in the additional site acquired by it, though by claiming the same as an extension, since the land wherein the petitioners intend to take up construction is not included in earlier approval which is only in respect of land admeasuring Ac.4.00 gts, it is required to pay the charges including the charges as set out in the impugned letter. 19. On behalf of the respondents, it is also contended that the petitioners having paid the amounts in terms of the letter dated 17/27.01.2009 without any demur or protest cannot question the levy by claiming the same to be illegal after having obtained permission. 20. On behalf of the respondents, it is also contended that Section 388 of the GHMC Act is not only in relation to dividing the land into building plots, but also covers any land or a portion to be used for building purposes and since, the petitioners are seeking to construct residential apartment blocks in the land acquired by it, subsequently the petitioners are required to make payment for obtaining permission for undertaking construction therein notwithstanding the fact that the said land is not divided into plots, but is considered as one block of land. 21. I have taken note of the respective contentions urged. 22. 21. I have taken note of the respective contentions urged. 22. The short point that arises for consideration in the present Writ Petition is as to whether the demand of “Layout Regularization Scheme Charges” made by the 1 st respondent on the petitioners for grant of building permission is applicable only in relation to the plots wherein construction is proposed to be undertaken and not in respect of land which is not divided into plots and sold, but is used for construction of apartment block. 23. For deciding the aforesaid issue, it is necessary to refer to G.O.Ms. No.902 dated 31.12.2008 wherein the word unapproved/illegal layout has been defined which reads as under: ““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.” 24. Though on behalf of the petitioners it is vehemently contended that inasmuch as the petitioners are not dividing the land acquired by it into plots for undertaking construction and is selling only the built up area after completion of the construction, it is to be noted that the petitioners while selling the built up area in the residential apartment constructed by it would also sell the undivided share in the land, thereby resulting in transfer of interest in the land in favour of the intending purchaser. Thus, effectively the land purchased by the petitioners on which construction of residential apartment is made and sold to the purchaser, the interest of the petitioners in the land acquired by it would get transferred though not by metes and bounds, with specific boundaries. Such division of interest in the land when sold along with built-up area would have to be treated as without developed road, open spaces, amenities and without approval of the competent authority. Thus, the act of petitioners acquiring the additional land adjacent to its existing construction and proposing to undertake construction of two additional blocks therein would be covered by the definition of ‘unapproved layout’ as defined under the aforesaid G.O. 25. Further, Section 388 of the GHMC Act also covers various types of use of land and is not confined only to dividing the land into plots. 26. Further, Section 388 of the GHMC Act also covers various types of use of land and is not confined only to dividing the land into plots. 26. A perusal of Clause (c) of Section 388 of the Act would show that use of any land or a portion thereof by permitting the same to be used for building purpose, a notice is required to be given to the Commissioner of intention to layout land for building and since, the petitioners in the land acquired by it admeasuring Ac.1.18 gts. is intending to construct residential apartment and sell the same with undivided share of land to the intending purchasers, such use of land for building purposes in the considered view of this Court would squarely be covered by the scope of Section 388 of the Act. 27. Since, the petitioners by undertaking construction of residential apartment would not only be selling the constructed area but also the undivided share in the land, such construction in the land acquired by it which is not already divided into plots having necessary approval from the concerned authority, such construction would have to be considered as being made in an approved layout of a plot of Ac.1.18 gts. requiring the petitioners to pay the necessary charges for regularizing such plot of land. Further, it would also not out of place to note that there is no prescription in G.O.Ms. No.902 as amended by G.O.Ms. No.113 as to the extent of land which would be considered as plot. 28. On the other hand the Table 1 of the G.O. would show that any land irrespective of its size would be considered as plot. Thus, the entire extent of Ac.1.18 gts. acquired by the petitioners in respect of which the petitioners had submitted application for constructing two apartment blocks including provision of amenities and roads would have to be treated as plot by itself, requiring to pay necessary charges in respect of the said plot. 29. Thus, the claim of the petitioners that only when land is divided into plots and sold in respect of which the purchaser making an application for grant of building permission for undertaking construction therein is required to pay charges towards regularization scheme being unauthorized/illegal layout is misconceived. 30. 29. Thus, the claim of the petitioners that only when land is divided into plots and sold in respect of which the purchaser making an application for grant of building permission for undertaking construction therein is required to pay charges towards regularization scheme being unauthorized/illegal layout is misconceived. 30. In view of the above, this Court sees no illegality in the 1st respondent issuing the impugned letter demanding an amount of Rs.25,54,430/- towards Layout Regularization Scheme Charges. 31. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is devoid of merit and is dismissed. No costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending if any shall stand closed.