The Deccan Chronicle 27.09.2010
AP Gazette nails Kalpana mall version, state retreatsHyderabad, Sept. 26: The Municipal Administration and Urban Development (MAUD) department has said that the government has proposed to rectify the earlier mistake of showing the plot housing Kalpana Theatre as “residential use” in the Master Plan and hence decided to exempt the builder from paying impact fees.
In a rejoinder to the news item CM waives Rs 20cr for Kalpana mall, the MAUD stated that the government had examined the builder’s proposal in detail and observed that the cinema had been in existence since 1964 and that the land came under commercial use.
The department also sought to clarify that it had recommended to the Chief Minister, Mr K. Rosaiah, to exempt the impact fee by converting the land use from “residential” to “commercial”.
Our correspondent replies: The MAUD memo 6169/I/2010-2 published in the Andhra Pradesh gazette (No 408) nails the version in the rejoinder. The gazette states: “The government has examined the representation of the applicants in consultation with the GHMC commissioner and has decided to convert the land use from residential use to commercial use and to collect impact fee as per rules.”
Further, the MAUD had put the payment of impact fee prescribed for category A for the proposed construction of multiplex as one of the 16 conditions for change of land use. The gazette also states that the applicant put forth his argument about the existence of the theatre since 1964 and that the land had been put for commercial and not residential use since then.
While the department recommended levying the impact fee, the municipal administration minister, Mr A. Ramanarayana Reddy, had recommended the exemption.
The Chief Minister had overruled the minister and ordered that the impact fee be levied.
The rejoinder has conveniently kept under wraps the subsequent crucial development of the builder approaching the chief minister after the gazette notification was issued directing the former to pay the impact fee.
It was on the directions of the Chief Minister, that MAUD re-circulated the file recommending exemption. Ironically, MAUD made an observation that the applicant had not come with any new grounds that warranted a re-look but in the end recommended the exemption, apparently under pressure.
The Chief Minister did a volte face and ordered the exemption following which the MAUD issued fresh orders.
We stand by our report.
