IN THE ITAT HYDERABAD BENCH ‘A’
Smt. T. Urmila
Versus
Income-tax Officer, Ward-6(2)
IT APPEAL NO. 398 (HYD.) OF 2012
[ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09]
DECEMBER 12, 2012
ORDER
Chandra Poojari, Accountant Member
This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the CIT(A)-IV, Hyderabad dated 31.1.2012 for assessment year 2008-09.
2. The assessee raised the following grounds of appeal:
1. The order of the learned CIT(A) is not only perverse but is erroneous on facts and in law and is prejudicial to the appellant.
2. The learned CIT(A) erred in holding that the land sold by the appellant is not an agricultural land on the ground that its character did not remain as agriculture on the date of sale, and further erred in relying on the decisions to support such stand without putting them across to the appellant for explanation.
3. The learned CIT(A) while deciding the issue whether the land sold is agricultural or not when relying on decisions that are not put to the appellant erred in not looking into the decisions that are relied upon by the assessee and further erred in not appreciating the fact that in one such decision (292 ITR 481) their lordships has also considered the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarifa Bibi Mohd. Ibrahim (204 ITR 631) and still it is held that the land is agricultural in spite of the fact that the purpose for which it is sold is not agricultural and there by violated the principles of binding precedents.
4. The learned CIT(A) erred in assuming that once the land fall within the limits of the Hyderabad Airport Development Authority (HADA) constituted under A.P. Urban Areas (Development) Act it is a ‘municipality’ under section 2(14)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 failing to appreciate that HADA is not a ‘municipality’ as defined under section 2(14)(iii) of IT Act it loses its character of agriculture.
5. The learned CIT(A) erred in not holding that the notified authority Hyderabad Airport Development Authority is not a municipality nor it is Municipality being called so to fall within the definition U/s. 2(14)(iii) (a) of IT Act 1961.
6. Without prejudice, the learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the case of the appellant is rather a case of compulsory acquisition by State Government and therefore was exempt under the provisions of section 10(37) of the IT Act.
7. The learned CIT(A) erred in not entertaining the alternate plea to direct the AO to consider deduction u/s. 54F on the ground that the said claim is not made by filing revised return of income relying on the decision of Supreme Court in Goetz, in spite of the fact that such claim came to be made only when the AO refused to accept the claim of exemption from Capital Gains and hence is required to be entertained and there is no requirement of filing revised return in such circumstances for making alternate claim and further erred in giving a finding that such claim requires investigation into fresh facts.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual. She had purchased 20.07 acres of land in Srinagar village in Maheswaram Mandal on 18.5.1993. During the relevant previous year, the said land was sold to M/s. Ramky Estates and Farms Pvt. Ltd. for Rs. 14,12,25,000. The receipt was not offered to tax by the assessee claiming that the land was agricultural land. The Assessing Officer noticed that the impugned land was situated in the village Srinagar of Maheswaram Mandal which is included in the Hyderabad Airport Development Authority (HADA), vide G.O. MS 352 MA dated 30.07.2001. He noted that HADA has been constituted as a Special Area Development Authority by the Government of Andhra Pradesh u/s. 3A of the Andhra Pradesh Urban Areas (Development) Act, 1975. Notification to this effect has been issued by the Municipal Administration and Urban Development (II) Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, notifying 89 villages from 7 Mandals in the vicinity and surrounding the International Airport, Shamshabad, as a Special Development Area. The Assessing Officer noted that the village Srinagar in Maheswaram Mandal is included in the said 89 villages. The Assessing Officer further noted that the Government of Andhra Pradesh has issued a land acquisition notification under the Land Acquisition Act, for the acquisition of the above said land of the assessee to develop into an integrated township. He further noted that the purchaser, M/s. Ramky Estates and Farms Pvt. Ltd., hereinafter referred to as ‘Ramky’, has submitted a proposal dated 8.12.2006 to the Hyderabad Urban Development Authority (HUDA) for the development of the integrated township in a joint venture with them on the land for which acquisition notice was given by the Government of Andhra Pradesh including the above mentioned land. It was further noticed that the assessee had registered an irrevocable power of attorney in favour of Ramky on 5.5.2007 to receive the possession of the said land and enter into and to hold, defend, management and administer the property and deal with the property in any manner as Ramky may agree upon with any third party/ developer and to have the property developed by the construction of the project, as per the scheme or arrangement, as agreed by Ramky with HUDA/any third party developer and if need be to execute an irrevocable power of attorney in favour of the developer.
4. The Assessing Officer also noted that the Government of Andhra Pradesh had issued orders for development of the above said land into Integrated Township vide its order bearing GO Rt No. 93 dated 16.5.2007. It was noted that the assessee had sold impugned land admeasuring 20.07 acres, by entering into an agreement to sell and the sale consideration of Rs. 14,12,25,000 had also been received in full on 21.8.2007. Further, the assessee had also handed over the possession of the said land to Ramky on the said date itself. On an examination of the above facts, the Assessing Officer opined that the above said transfer of the land by the assessee to Ramky attracted the provisions of sec. 45 of the IT Act for the following reasons:
(a) He noted that the impugned land was situated in Srinagar village of Maheswaram Mandal which is within the limit of HADA, and therefore, was a capital asset as per sec. 2(14) of the Act, liable to capital gains tax u/s. 45 thereof.
(b) The document spoke of authorising Ramky to enter into an agreement with HUDA or any other third party or a developer for developing the assessee’s land. The Assessing Officer observed that if the said document is read with other documents viz., the Government Order regarding approval for the project of an Integrated Township and the proposal by Ramky for joint development with HUDA, it clearly was a ‘development agreement’ in respect of the said land. He, therefore, held that when the assessee intended to sell the said land for the purpose of construction of a township, such intention corroborated the nature of the said as being a capital asset within the meaning of Sec. 2(14) of the Act.
(c) It was noted that the land was sold to Ramky on 21.8.2007 i.e., after the Government Notification and orders, regarding development of the said land into a Township. He observed that but for such notification, the land would not have fetched the price of Rs. 70 lakhs per acre. He observed that had the land been sold for agricultural purposes, such high price could not have been fetched, and therefore, these facts corroborated the fact that the transaction was with respect to a capital asset, liable to capital gains.
5. He also noted that the land was sold by the assessee at the rate of Rs. 70 lakhs per acre to a non agriculturist, for non agricultural use. It was sold at a price at which no agriculturist would purchase for agricultural use, as the said price was not commensurate with the value of agricultural produce on yield basis. This also showed that the transaction was that of transfer of a capital asset. In view of the above, the Assessing Officer concluded that the land transferred by the assessee was a capital asset within the meaning of sec. 2(14) of the Act, liable to be taxed u/s. 45 thereof.
6. In response to the show cause notice issued in this regard, the assessee vide her letter dated 24.12.2010, objected to the treatment proposed to be given by the Assessing Officer. It was claimed that the reasons cited to this effect in the show cause letter are not relevant. However, the Assessing Officer found the objections of the assessee untenable. He reiterated that consequent to the Government notification regarding constitution of a Local Authority by the name HADA and inclusion of Village Srinagar in the limit thereof, the status of the land was that of a capital asset. He noted that by way of the said notification, the area had been declared as a Special Development Area in and around the Shamshabad International Airport, for which Special Planning Control, high level of infrastructural and managerial inputs, status of Special Investment Zone, etc. had been specified.
7. The Assessing Officer also noted that the assessee had filed a petition before the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh on 1.8.2006: praying them to quash the acquisition notification, fearing that the Government might give a meagre compensation since the use of the lands in the area has already been changed and the real estate companies had been purchasing lands therein at high prices, as the average market value in the Srinagar village became Rs. 70 lakhs per acre. It had also been mentioned in the said petition that the land notified in the acquisition notification was in Srinagar Village, which falls under the HADA limits and in the event that the present acquisition proposed is for a development sponsored by a Local Authority, then it would necessarily have to be done by HADA not by HUDA in any case or permission has to be necessarily obtained from the HADA for any construction or developmental activity undertaken by any person including any Government department. The assessee had stated in the petition that no sanctioned Government Housing Scheme or any other development scheme that is sponsored by either HUDA or HADA which are Local Authorities under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Urban Areas (Development) Act, 1975, much less is there any scheme that is initiated or sponsored by the HADA, which is the competent local authority, or by any municipal authorities with respect to development of the proposed integrated township for this purpose the present exercise of acquiring land has been undertaken and as on today, no action has been initiated to identify persons or class of persons, for whom these lands are destined to benefit. It was sated that the identity of the beneficiaries or the class of beneficiaries or the terms on which the lands would be ultimately allotted was yet to be determined. The Assessing Officer noted that the relevant and pertinent point of the petition was that the assessee had herself admitted that her land, which was sold, was in HADA limits and that the HADA is a local authority.
8. Referring to the definition of the term “Capital Asset”, as given in sec. 2(14) of the Act, the Assessing Officer observed that in the assessee’s case, the land was very much within the limits of the HADA, which is a Local Authority, comprising of 89 villages from 7 Mandals, surrounding the International Airport and having a population of 1.54 lakhs as per Census, 2001. The Assessing Officer held that HADA is a Government notified Local Authority and is a Municipality within the meaning of sec. 2(14)(iii)(a). He noted that in the case of Deoki Nandan & Sons v. CIT (115 Taxman 513), the Hon’ble Delhi High Court have held that the Faridabad Administrative Complex was akin to a Municipality. The Assessing Officer observed that the HADA also had a population of more than 10,000 as per Census, 2001. He also referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of S. Hidaytullah Sahib v. CIT (158 ITR 20), as also that of the Hon’ble A.P. High Court in the case of CIT v. G. M. Omar Khan (116 ITR 950), which was upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court also later, as reported in 196 ITR 269. Accordingly, he observed that the land sold by the assessee was a non agricultural land and, therefore, a capital asset as per s. 2(14) of the Act, liable to capital gains u/s. 45 of the Act.
9. The Assessing Officer noted that the assessee’s contention is further not acceptable on account of the fact that the nature of the land sold had changed to non agricultural asset after the Government notification regarding the development thereof into a Township. He observed that the same was no longer agricultural land at the time of transfer, as the notification for development preceded the same. He also noted that on account of the Government notification, a big corporate group like Ramky who are non agriculturists, had purchased the land for construction of township, which is a non agricultural use at a high price of Rs 70 lakhs per acre. He observed that had the land been agricultural, and it would have been purchased for agricultural use, such price could not have been fetched. Accordingly, he observed that considering the totality of the circumstances, the land was non agricultural land, liable for capital gain tax. The Assessing Officer also noted that his conclusion was supported by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarifa Bibi Mohd. Ibrahim & Ors. v. CIT (204 ITR 631), wherein the observations of a division of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. V. A. Trivedi (172 ITR 95) had been upheld. He noted that in the assessee’s case also the land had been notified by the Government for construction of a Township by the time it was sold and the assessee gave a Power of attorney, authorizing Ramky to undertake the development of the land. He held that it showed that the assessee had entered into an agreement with Ramky for use of land for a non agricultural purpose and also that the land was not intended to be used for agricultural purposes.
10. With regard to the reliance of the assessee on the decisions in the case of DLF Housing and Construction (P) Ltd. v. CIT (114 ITR 806) (Del.), Hindustan Industrial Resources Ltd. v. ACIT (221 CTR 710)(Del) and further on the decision of the Hon’ble ITAT in the case of K. Renuka Devi, the Assessing Officer observed that the said decisions do not have much relevance, as the issue involved therein was the assessability of compensation for acquisition to capital gains tax. On the other hand, he observed that the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sarifa Bibi Mohd. Ibrahim & Ors. v. CIT (supra) answers the objections of the assessee. He also relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Gopal C. Sharma v. CIT (209 ITR 946) (Bom). He noted that the Hon’ble Courts have characterized some indicators and if one or more of them appear in a transaction, those are to be considered in determining whether a land is an agricultural land or a non agricultural one for the purpose of capital gains tax. He noted that in the assessee’s case more than one factor was so present and therefore, the land was to be held as non-agricultural for the purpose of capital gains tax. Accordingly, considering that the land had been held for more than 36 months by the assessee the receipt of Rs. 14,12,25,000 was brought to long term capital gains tax.
11. On appeal, the CIT(A) confirmed the finding of the Assessing Officer. Against this the assessee is in appeal before us.
12. The learned AR submitted that the assessee sold lands admeasuring 20.07 acres in Sy. Nos.224, 225, 226, 230 and 231 at Srinagar (V) for Rs.14,12,25,000 during the year relevant to A.Y.2008-09, and claimed the same to be exempt on the ground that the said lands were agricultural lands, not covered by the definition of Capital Asset u/s 2(14) of the Act. The AR submitted that the agricultural lands in question were located in Srinagar village, comprised in the area within the jurisdiction of Gram Panchayat of Mankhal and as such they were situated in an area outside any municipality or cantonment board, having a population of not less than ten thousand, and also beyond the distance notified by the Central Government from the limits of any such municipality or cantonment board. The said land of Ac 20.07 Gts was purchased by the Assessee in the May 1993 and from then onwards the assessee has been carrying on agricultural operations on the said land. It is an undisputed fact that such lands had been held by the Assessee for more than 13 years, upon which agricultural operations were carried out regularly throughout the period of holding till the date of sale and the agricultural income there from was disclosed in the respective returns filed with the department. They had never been used by the assessee for non-agricultural purpose before the date of sale nor did the assessee seek any permission from the relevant authorities to non-agricultural use.
13. The AR further submitted that as per the Andhra Pradesh Agricultural Land (Conversion for Non-Agricultural Purposes) Act, 2006, conversion of agricultural lands for any other purpose is prohibited except with specific permission by the authority under that Act. It is further submitted that the High Court of Karnataka, in the case of CIT v. Smt. K. Leelavathy (341 ITR 287), approved the order of the ITAT wherein it was held that the land sold by the assessee retained its agricultural character till the date of the order permitting non-agricultural use and could be treated as a capital asset only thereafter.
14. The learned AR submitted that the lands were classified as agricultural lands in the revenue records, even as on the date of sale and they were sold on acreage basis. In fact, there was actual cultivation at the relevant point of time, not only by the assessee but in the entire area in the vicinity of such land. There was no real development or actual urbanization as at the time of sale and the Government had simply issued a notification proposing an integrated township. At any rate, a mere notification proposing to develop a township, by itself, could not be a determining factor to infer that the character of such land had undergone a change. In this regard, the AR relied on the order of Pune Bench of the Tribunal wherein categorically held, in the case of Haresh V. Milani v. JCIT (111 TTJ 310) (Pune), that the mere fact that the land under reference was brought under industrial zone cannot be a determining factor to say that the character of the land had altered. While holding so, it relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of N. Srinivasa Rao v. Special Court [2006] 4 SCC 214, wherein it was observed that the fact that the agricultural land in question was included in urban area, by itself, was not enough to conclude that the user of the same had been altered. The AR further submitted that there is no development in the subject area even as on date and agriculture is being carried out in the area even as on date. In view of the above facts and law, the lands sold by the assessee were agricultural in nature at the point of time when they were sold.
15. The AR further submitted that the impugned sale was, in fact, not voluntary but was made under certain compelling circumstances. The Government of Andhra Pradesh issued a notification u/s 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for compulsory acquisition of the land pertaining to the assessee along with other tracts of land in the vicinity. As the assessee was not interested in parting with her agricultural land, she, along with others, challenged the Acquisition Notification before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh and obtained a stay. The Government was seriously pursuing the case and a Special Counsel had been entrusted with the job of taking necessary steps to get the stay vacated. As the matter was pending before the High court, M/s. Ramky Estates & Farms P. Ltd. approached the Government of Andhra Pradesh and Hyderabad Urban Development Authority (HUDA) with a proposal for development of an integrated township under Joint Development Model, by utilizing the land which was the subject matter of the Acquisition Notification. Considering the fact that the acquisition process could not proceed further due to the stalemate created on account of litigation by the land owners, the Vice Chairman, HUDA requested the Government to accord sanction to go ahead with Joint Development Model and also permission to withdraw Land Acquisition Notification after the land owners agree for transferring their lands to the Special Purpose Vehicle and withdrawal of court cases. Based on such request of the Vice Chairman, HUDA, the Government had granted in principle approval for such proposal. Accordingly, the said company was authorized as a Special Purpose Vehicle to acquire the lands in question for the specified purpose with a condition that the legal cases filed by the land owners were withdrawn. As there was uncertainty over the final outcome of the case pending before the High Court and the Government was very keen on acquiring the land compulsorily, either on its own or through a Special Purpose Vehicle, the assessee was compelled to sell his land to the company, which was granted in principle approval by the Government to acquire the land. The assessee decided to sell the land to the said company in order to fetch a little higher price than what she would have got from Government in the event of ultimate acquisition. Thus, the transfer of land to the company authorized by the Government to acquire the lands for the purpose for which Land Acquisition Notification was issued is in the nature of transfer on account of compulsory acquisition.
16. The AR humbly submitted that s. 2(14) of IT Act, 1961, specifically excludes the agricultural land from the definition of ‘Capital Asset’ unless it is situated in any area within the jurisdiction of a municipality, whether such municipality is known as municipality, municipal corporation, notified area committee, town area committee or by any other name. Thus, it is very clear that the gain on sale of an agricultural land would be. exigible to tax only when the land transferred is located within the jurisdiction of a municipality. The fact that all the expressions enlisted after the word municipality are placed within the brackets starting with the words ‘whether known as’ clearly indicates that such expressions are used to denote a municipality only, irrespective of the name by which such municipality is called.
17. The AR submitted the word “Capital Asset” is defined in Section 2(14) to mean property of any kind held by an assessee, whether or not connected with his business or profession, but does not include-
(iii) agricultural land in India, not being land situate-
(a) in any area which is comprised within the jurisdiction of a municipality (whether known as a municipality, municipal corporation, notified area committee, town area committee, town committee, or by any other name) or a cantonment board and which has a population of not less than ten thousand according to the last preceding census of which the relevant figures have been published before the first day of the previous year; or
(b) in any area within such distance, not being more than eight kilometres, from the local limits of any municipality or cantonment board referred to in item (a), as the Central Government may, having regard to the extent of, and scope for, urbanization of that area and other relevant considerations, specify in this behalf by notification in the Official Gazette;
18. The AR submitted that it is very clear that the gain on sale of an agricultural land would be exigible to tax only when the land transferred is located within the jurisdiction of a municipality. The fact that all the expressions enlisted after the word municipality are placed within the brackets starting with the words ‘whether known as’ clearly indicates that such expressions are used to denote a municipality only, irrespective of the name by which such municipality is called. This fact is further substantiated by the provisions contained under clause (b) wherein it has been clearly provided that the authority referred to in clause (a) was only municipality.
19. The AR further submitted that the need for a clarification within the brackets is for the apparent reason that the name of the local body varies based on the nature of the area for which it is constituted and also for the reason that there is a lack of uniformity all over India with reference to the nomenclature of the urban local authority. In fact, municipality is known by different names in various parts of the country. This fact is also evident from Art.243Q of the Constitution of India, dealing with creation of municipalities. The term ‘municipality’ is not defined u/s 2(14) of the Act. However, the same is defined under article 243 P(e) of the Constitution of India, which is reproduced hereunder:
“243 P(e): “Municipality” means an institution of self-Government constituted under article 243Q. “
Since “Municipality” is defined to mean an institution constituted under Article 243Q, the same is extracted hereunder:
“243Q. Constitution of Municipalities.- (1) There shall be constituted in every State,-
(a) a Nagar Panchayat (by whatever name called) for a transitional area, that is to say, an area in transition from a rural area to an urban area;
(b) a Municipal Council for a smaller urban area; and
(c) a Municipal Corporation for a larger urban area, in accordance with the provisions of this Part:”
20. The learned AR further submitted that the constitution, composition, guidelines regarding elections, the eligibility and disqualification criteria to be elected as members, powers, authorities and responsibilities of municipalities etc., are contained under Part-IXA of the Indian Constitution and Art. 243R therein categorically states that all the members of the municipality shall be directly elected by the people of the respective territorial wards. The said article is extracted hereunder:
“243R. Composition of Municipalities.-
(1) Save as provided in clause (2), all the seats in a Municipality shall be filled by persons chosen by direct election from the territorial constituencies in the Municipal area and for this purpose each Municipal area shall be divided into territorial constituencies to be known as wards.
(2) The Legislature of a State may, by law, provide-
(a) for the representation in a Municipality of-
(i) persons having special knowledge or experience in Municipal administration;
(ii) the members of the House of the People and the members of the Legislative Assembly of the State representing constituencies which comprise wholly or partly the Municipal area;
(iii) the members of the Council of States and the members of the Legislative Council of the State registered as electors within the Municipal area;
(iv) the Chairpersons of the Committees constituted under clause (5) of article 243S:
Provided that the persons referred to in paragraph (i) shall not have the right to vote in the meetings of the Municipality;
(b) the manner of election of the Chairperson of a Municipality.”
Further, it is categorically provided that all the state laws dealing with the municipalities should be consistent with the provisions contained in Part- IXA.
21. The AR submitted that the above provisions of the Constitution leave no room for any doubt that ‘Municipality’ is a constitutional body concerning urban self government; the creation of which is mandatory. The provisions governing the constitution, composition and functioning of municipalities are contained in part IX-A of the Constitution and the relevant laws laid down by the respective state governments, AP Municipalities Act,1965 in the instant case, should be in consistency with such provisions. The term ‘Municipality’ is defined u/s. 2(22) of AP Municipalities Act,1965 to mean a municipality of such grade as may be declared by the Government, from time to time, by notification in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette on the basis of income and such other criteria as may be prescribed. Thus, in the state of Andhra Pradesh, a municipality has to be mandatorily constituted in terms of s. 3 of AP Municipalities Act,1965, as per the guidelines laid down in the constitution, and has to be so notified by the Government whereas setting up of a Development/ Special Area Authority is not mandatory. A state Government may decide to constitute such Authority for a specified purpose, depending on the specific requirements for which it is proposed to be set up, by way of a simple notification and the power to notify such Authority is drawn from an Act specially legislated for the said purpose. This is also evident from the Memorandum explaining the provisions of Finance Act, 1970, whereby s. 2(14) was amended so as to include the agricultural lands located within the jurisdiction of a municipality in the definition of the expression ‘Capital Asset’.
22. The AR submitted that the Chennai Bench of ITAT held, in the case of ITO v. Chander-HUF [2011] 47 SOT 17, that a Town Panchayat, which was notified for urban agglomeration, is not a municipality and as such the agricultural lands falling within the said Town Panchayat would not constitute a capital asset as per the definition under section 2(14)(iii) of the Act. The relevant portion of the decision is extracted hereunder:
“But as per the Act, the provisions of section 2(14) are attracted if the land falls within 8 km. of the municipality and nothing else. Therefore, in our opinion also the assessing officer has stretched the definition of municipality in his own manner. Even though Sholinganallur Town Panchayat is notified for Urban Agglomeration, it is not a Municipality. This definition will not at all fall in the definition of capital asset given in section 2(14)(iii)(b) of the Act. Admittedly, Perumbakkam and Arasankalani villages are separate Panchayats having population of less than 10,000 as stated above. Admittedly, the lands sold were agricultural lands and these were agricultural lands and doing cultivation was done thereon till the date of sale. A Panchayat is entirely different from a Municipality. Thus, Sholinganallur Town Panchayat cannot come within the purview of Municipality. The population of both the villages is less than 10,000. Both the villages are not notified by Central Government for urbanization which is a condition precedent for doing s0. The intention of the legislature is to exclude transaction relating to agricultural land from capital gains, unless it falls within the notified area of 8 km. of Municipal or Cantonment Boards. The words used municipality, municipal corporation, notified area committee, town area committee and town committee all refer to urban local self-government institutions. The Panchayats are rural self-government institutions whether they are Town Panchayats or Village Panchayats. The Municipalities are governed by Municipal Act and the Panchayats are governed by Panchayat Act.”
Reliance is also placed on the decisions in the cases of CIT v. Murari Lodge (194 ITR 125) (Ker), CIT v. P.J. Thomas (211 ITR 897) (Mad) and ITO v. P. Venkatramana (47 TTJ 549) (Hyd).”
23. The AR submitted that without prejudice to the same, the GO MS No. 352, issued by the Government of AP constituting HADA, itself clearly indicates that the provisions of the AP Urban Areas (Development) Act, 1975 were invoked not only in respect of major cities and towns but also extended to many other areas of the state even though such areas may not have a large urban population or may not be in the vicinity of large cities. Accordingly, HADA was constituted as a Special Area Development Body. The factual details with respect to HADA are as follows:
HADA area at a glance
HADA area is located about 21 km south of Hyderabad City
Total Area: 458.96 sq. km
Total number of Revenue Villages: 70
Total number of settlements: 107 (70 Village settlements + 37 hamlets)
Number of Mandals covered: 7 All partly covered only, viz., Shamsabad, Rajendranagar, Maheshwaram, Ibrahimpatnam, Saroornagar, Moinabad and Hayatnagar, respectively.
Entire HADA area falls within Ranga Reddy District
