Allahabad High Court
Ratnesh Kumar Gupta vs State Of Up Others on 22 February, 2024
Author: Rohit Ranjan Agarwal
Bench: Rohit Ranjan Agarwal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:31446 Court No. - 6 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 536 of 2024 Petitioner :- Ratnesh Kumar Gupta Respondent :- State Of Up Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajendra Singh Chauhan Counsel for Respondent :- Sant Ram Sharma Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.
1. Instructions placed before the Court by the respondents counsel are taken on record.
2. Heard Sri Rajendra Singh Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for respondents no.1 and 2 as well as Sri Sant Ram Sharma, learned counsel appearing for respondents no.3 and 4.
3. Through this writ petition, a challenge has been raised to the order dated 22.06.2013 passed by the respondent no.4 and order dated 04.12.2023 passed by respondent no.2 upholding the order passed by respondent no.4 imposing various charges upon the petitioner in pursuance of the map sanctioned by Banda Development Authority. The demand raised includes the impact fee of Rs.10,14,820/-, Sub-Division charges of Rs.81,156/- and inspection charges of Rs.233/-.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that under Section 15 (2-A) of the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 (hereinafter called as "Act of 1973"), the Development Authority was not competent to levy the impact fees, sub-Division charges and inspection charges. He has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court passed in Civil Appeal No.5645 of 2015 (Mathura Vrindavan Development Authority and Another. Vs. Rajesh Sharma and Ors.), decided on 28.04.2023.
5. Learned counsel has further placed before the Court the Government Order dated 06.12.2023 whereby the Government has directed for not levying impact fees, sub-Division charges and inspection charges. According to him, the Development Authority has wrongly imposed the said charges.
6. Sri Sant Ram Sharma, learned counsel appearing for respondents no.3 and 4, while defending the order of the Development Authority as well as the appellate authority, has contended that the judgment rendered by the Apex Court is of the year 2023, and the Government Order was issued in the year 2023, thus, it operates prospectively and not in the cases where the map was sanctioned prior to the decision by the Apex Court and the said fees has been charged. According to him, in the instant case, the demand was made from the petitioner in the year 2013 pursuant to the sanctioning of the map and thus, no help can be extended to the petitioner in view of the judgment rendered in case of Mathura Vrindavan Development Authority (supra).
7. I have heard learned counsel for respective parties and perused the material on record.
8. Before adverting to consider the issue in hand, a cursory glance of Section 15 (2-A) of the Act of 1973 is necessary for better appreciation of the case, which is extracted here as under:-
"(2-A) The Authority shall be entitled to levy development fees mutation charges, stacking fees and water fees in such manner and at such rates as may be prescribed.
Provided that, the amount of stacking fees levied in respect of an area which is not being developed or has not been developed, by the Authority, shall be transferred to the local authority within whose local limits such area Is situated."
9. From the reading of the aforesaid provision, it is clear that sub-Section (2-A) of Section 15 was inserted by the U.P. Act No.3 No.1997. According to the said provision, the authority is only entitled to levy development fees, mutation charges, stacking fees and water fees in such manner and at such rates, as may be prescribed.
10. The Apex Court while considering the matter of Mathura Vrindavan Development Authority (supra) proceeded to consider the scope of Section 15 (2-A) of the Act of 1973 and held as under:-
"13. 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."
11. The argument advanced from the respondents side to the extent that the judgment is applicable prospectively and not to the cases wherein demand has been raised by the Development Authority prior to the judgment is thoroughly misplaced. It is to be noted that the amendment in Section 15 was made by the Legislature in the year 1997 by U.P. Act No.3 of 1997.
12. As the Act clearly provides for the charges under various category in sub-Section (2-A) of Section 15 of the Act of 1973, the authority was not justified in demanding the impact fee, sub-Division charges and inspection charges from the petitioner which is outside the scope and purview of the provision of sub-Section (2-A) of Section 15 of the Act of 1973.
13. The Apex Court had held the imposition of said charges by the development to be illegal and outside the scope of sub-Section (2-A) of Section 15 of the Act of 1973.
14. In view of the said fact, the order dated 22.06.2013 as well as 04.12.2023 are hereby quashed to the extent of imposition of impact fees, sub-Division charges and inspection charges.
15. Writ petition stands partly allowed.
16. Development Authority is hereby directed to sanction the map of the petitioner subject to deposit of further charges minus the impact fees, sub-Division charges and inspection charges within a period of one month from the date of production of certified copy of this order.
Order Date :- 22.2.2024 SK Goswami