Allahabad High Court
Pramod Kumar Gupta vs State Of U.P. And Others on 24 May, 2023
Author: Salil Kumar Rai
Bench: Salil Kumar Rai
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:115654-DB Court No. - 39 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 65552 of 2010 Petitioner :- Pramod Kumar Gupta Respondent :- State of U.P. and Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashok Bhatnagar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Q.H. Siddiqui Hon'ble Salil Kumar Rai,J.
Hon'ble Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal,J.
List has been revised.
Heard the counsel for the petitioner.
The present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 20.12.2006 passed by the Zonal Officer, Allahabad Development Authority, Allahabad refusing to sanction the map of the petitioner on the ground that demand made through notice dated 02.05.2001 had been satisfied by the petitioner. The notice dated 02.05.2001 was issued after the petitioner submitted a building plan and through the notice, the petitioner was asked to deposit External Development fee and fees and charges under other categories.
It has been argued by the counsel for the petitioner that in light of the Division Bench judgments of this Court in Shaukat Ali vs. Allahabad Development Authority, Allahabad & Anr. (2003) 2 UPLBEC 1573 and Smt. Nisha Kumari vs. State of U.P & Ors. 2014 6 ADJ 20, the aforesaid demands except the demand for Extra Development fee are illegal and the petitioner cannot be asked to deposit the same. It has been argued that the Supreme Court in Mathura Vrindavan Development Authority & Anr. vs. Rajesh Sharma & Ors. 2023 SCC OnLine SC 530 has also held that, except Development Charges, the Development Authorities have no power to levy fees and charges for other purposes mentioned in the notice dated 02.05.2001.
We have perused the demand notice and the judgments referred by the counsel for the petitioner and find force in the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the Development Authority had no jurisdiction to demand charges, other than External Development fee. Paragraph nos. 23, 24 and 25 of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Mathura Vrindavan (supra) are reproduced below : -
"23. Under the circumstances, in exercise of powers under Section 41 of the Act, 1973, the State could not have issued the orders permitting/allowing the Development Authorities to levy the charges/fees other than provided under Section 15(2-A) of the Act, 1973. At this stage, it is required to be noted that the levy of fees/charges provided under Section 15(2-A), all of them have been specifically defined under Section 2 of the Act, 1973. Therefore, the intention of the Act is to levy only those charges/fees provided/mentioned under Section 15(2-A) of the Act, 1973, otherwise the other charges also would have been defined under the Act, 1973. Levy of such other charges can be said to be hit by Article 265 of the Constitution of India. As per Article 265 of the Constitution of India, there shall not be any levy of tax/fees/charges except in accordance with law and/or as provided under the statute. Under the circumstances and in view of the above, the High Court has rightly set aside the various demand notices by way of levy of inspection fee/supervision fee while granting of sanction lay out plan, sub-division charges, impact fee etc.
24. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the levy of development charges/fees by the various Development Authorities of the State of U.P. is hereby confirmed. The decision of the High Court in the case of Rekha Rani (supra) (Civil Appeal No. 4489/2014) quashing and setting aside the levy of development charges/fees is hereby quashed and set aside to that extent. The impugned judgments and orders passed by the High Court quashing and setting aside the demand notices/levy of other charges/fees, namely, inspection fee/supervision fee while granting of sanction layout plan, sub-division charges, impact fee etc. (other than development charges/fees) are hereby confirmed.
25. It is observed and directed that any amount already paid by the respective original writ petitioners other than the development charges/fees and the charges provided under Section 15(2-A), now be refunded to the respective original writ petitioners with 6% interest per annum, within a period of twelve months from today, of course after adjusting development charges/fees. It is made clear that we have not expressed anything on the levy of betterment charges, which, as such, is otherwise permissible under section 35 of the Act, 1973. It is also made clear that the order of refund shall be applicable only with respect to those original writ petitioners/persons who have challenged the demand notices and who were before the High Court. It is also observed and it is made clear that if any individual/original writ petitioner has any other grievances, it will be open for them to approach the High Court by way of independent proceedings."
(emphasis added) In view of the aforesaid, the demand notice dated 02.05.2001 issued by the Allahabad Development Authority so far as it asks the petitioner to deposit fees and charges for purposes other than External Development fees is illegal. The notice so far as it demands External Development fee is valid and the petitioner is liable to pay the same. Consequently, the order dated 20.12.2006 passed by the Zonal Officer, Allahabad Development Authority, Allahabad is also illegal and is, hereby, quashed.
The matter is remitted back to the Allahabad Development Authority, Allahabad with a direction that in case, the petitioner deposits the External Development fee as demanded through notice dated 02.05.2001, his plan submitted before the Authority shall be decided in accordance with law.
With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is allowed.
Order Date :- 24.5.2023 Vipasha