Allahabad High Court
M/S Pushpanjali Buildcon India Private ... vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh And 4 Others on 16 October, 2025
Author: Saumitra Dayal Singh
Bench: Saumitra Dayal Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:186242-DB
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 9357 of 2025
M/S Pushpanjali Buildcon India Private Limited
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
The State Of Uttar Pradesh And 4 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)
:
Kamlesh Kumar Dwivedi, Sr. Advocate, Vishakha Pande, Yashaswin Venugopal Bajpai
Counsel for Respondent(s)
:
C.S.C., J. N. Maurya, Suresh C. Dwivedi
Court No. - 3
HON'BLE SAUMITRA DAYAL SINGH, J.
HON'BLE INDRAJEET SHUKLA, J.
1. Heard Sri Rakesh Pande learned Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Vishakha Pande learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri J.N. Maurya learned counsel for the Development Authority and Sri K.K. Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the State.
2. Challenge has been raised to the Recovery Certificate dated 06.03.2025 issued by the Agra Development Authority seeking recovery of Rs. 2,26,65,871/- towards External Development Charges.
3. Undeniably the parties had entered into agreement dated 06.06.2007 for development of a residential complex at Agra. Under Clause 6 (b) of that agreement, the petitioner was required to pay External Development Charges in six installments of Rs. 16,15,734/- each. While the petitioner paid the first installment, parties are in dispute if the balance five installments payable on 12.09.2007, 12.03.2008, 12.09.2008, 12.03.2009 and 12.09.2009 were paid. Petitioner claims, it has made certain payments against those dues, whereas the respondent authority disputes the same.
4. On merits, learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner did not pay the External Development Charges because the development authorities did not carry out any external development. If the development authority were to discharge its obligation to carry out external developments, the petitioner would pay up the entire amount. Further, it has been urged that the entire amount is wholly secured inasmuch as 23 apartments already constructed have been mortgaged in favour of the development authority, to secure the above described liability.
5. Last, it has been stressed that in any case, no amount of interest liability may be claimed. Second, the respondents authorities claimed about approximately Rs. 42 lakhs in the year 2023. Presently, it has increased the demand arbitrarily in excess of Rs. two crores. The rate of interest claimed at 15.5% is also disputed to the extent there is no such agreed rate between the parties. In any case, the Rules being invoked by the development authority to claim interest on the delayed payment of External Development Charges were enacted subsequently. Those may not apply to the agreement in question which is of date prior to enforcement of the rules. Even if the Rules were to apply, interest @ 15.5% may not be claimed.
6. On the other hand, Sri J.N. Maurya learned counsel for the development authority would submit that the petitioner is a chronic defaulter. After paying the first installment of External Development Charges, it has not paid any further amount of External Development Charges. As to the external development, he would contend that the development authority has carried out external development. In any case, payment of External Development Charges was not dependent on completion of external development. To the extent the petitioner has defaulted in discharge of its liability to pay External Development Charges, it has exposed itself to interest liability in accordance with the U.P. Urban Planning and Development (Assessment, Levy and Collection of Development Fee) Rules, 2014, as amended in 2021. Last, it was submitted, dispute if any may be resolved through arbitration.
7. Having heard learned counsel for parties and having perused the record, we note that the amounts due have remained pending for long. Though, last default was committed on 12.09.2009, the development authority appears to have initiated recovery proceedings in the year 2023 i.e. after about 14 years. Even then, some inconsistency does appear to exist on the face of record inasmuch as the earlier demand raised by the development authority in the year 2023 was for approximately 42 lakhs. At present, that amount is being claimed in excess of Rs. two crores.
8. Therefore, on the suggestion of the Court, both parties agreed that they may revisit their positions such that middle ground may be reached, to the extent it may be possible. To put the petitioner to terms, let the defaulted amount (principal amount) of five installments of External Development Charges being claimed by the development authority be deposited in lump sum by 15.11.2025.
9. Subject to such deposit being made, the petitioner may approach respondent No. 3 by means of appropriate representation made in writing within a further period of one week.
10. Subject to such compliance, respondent No. 3 shall ensure that a proper reasoned decision is taken by the development authority within a period of fifteen days therefrom, after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
11. Any further amount that the development authority may claim thereafter may be intimated to the petitioner by means of a reasoned and speaking order within the same time.
12. In view of the above order being passed, subject to deposit of Rs. 80,78,670 by 15.11.2025 by the ptitioner, the impugned recovery proceeding may remain in abeyance till 15 December 2025.
13. With the above observations, present writ petition is disposed of.
(Indrajeet Shukla,J.) (Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.) October 16, 2025 Faraz