Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

A Permit Fee Rs. 400 B Triveni Mahotsav Rs. 500 C Water charges Rs. 8184 D Malba charges Rs. 3472 E Inspection fee Rs. 1289 F External Development charge Rs. 105955 G Sub Division Charge Nil H Open Area Penalty/ Compounding Rs. 6,29 046 I Mutation charge Nil J Other charges Nil Total Rs. 7,48,846 The petitioner aggrieved by the said demand note filed the writ petition on 5.10.2010. A Division Bench vide order dated 4.5.2011 directed the writ petition to be listed along with writ petition No. 2617 of 2007 and other connected matters. This Court passed following interim order on 30.5.2011 in the writ petition. "Heard Shri Ravi Kant, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and other counsels appearing for the petitioners, Shri A.K. Mishra and Shri Ajit Kumar Singh for the respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in this bunch of petitions interim order has been passed in the several writ petitions staying the open area penalty. In this writ petition the Sub Divisional Charges are being asked for. The hearing of this petition is continuing but could not be completed since summer vacation is commencing after tomorrow. List this petition on 14.07.2011 for hearing.

(b) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the demand notice dated 24.07.2010 (Annexure-2) requiring the petitioner to pay Rs. 6,29,046/- by way of penalty/compounding fee and Rs. 1,05,955/- by way of external development charge raised by the respondent Authority.

(c) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus restraining the respondents from realizing any amount in pursuance of the impugned demand notice dated 24.07.2010, and further the respondent authority be directed to sanction the building plan submitted by the petitioner without insisting here to pay the aforesaid two sums."

Group-E writ petition relates to Meerut Development Authority being writ petition No. 1883 of 1998 Displaced Arya Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. The petitioner a registered cooperative society submitted an application for sanction of lay out plan for Arya Nagar Colony, Meerut which was approved by the Prescribed authority. After sanction of the lay out plan, the petitioner claimed to have developed the colony. The petitioner submitted a map for construction of the marketing complex in the colony to the Moradabad Development Authority. By letter dated 27.2.1989, the petitioner was informed that unless the petitioner deposits Rs. 60/- per square meter as external development charge map cannot be sanctioned. A writ petition No. 5482 of 1989 was filed by the petitioner challenging the letter dated 27.2.1989. The writ petition was disposed of on 10.9.1997 giving liberty to the petitioner to represent the matter to the Vice Chairman, Moradabad Development Authority, who was directed to take decision after giving opportunity of hearing. For a period of two months the realisation of the amount in question was directed to be stayed. The petitioner filed a representation which has been rejected by order dated 12.12.1997 upholding the demand of Rs. 60/- per square meter as development charge. The petitioner filed the writ petition challenging the said demand. No interim order has been passed in the writ petition.

"Even under Section 57 of the Act the authority has power to make bye-laws. Therefore, it is crystal clear that either in the case of development fees or in the case of betterment charges the Rules, Regulations and Bye-laws have to be framed to attract the same. A decision by the Board without sanction of the authority to claim the external development charge is without any sanction of law. More particularly, there are no words available in the Act by the name of external development charges. The words external development charges are either synonyms or as far as closer to betterment fees since it relates to the area external to the building concerned, which has been developed on the basis of the sanctioned plan upon payment of charges, being development charges amongst others. If such betterment charge is being claimed then the authority has to satisfy that there is a betterment of the locality in compliance with Sections 35 and 36 of the Act. But if no such development is done to claim the betterment charges and no rules, no regulations and no bye-laws are framed to that extent, obviously the claim in the name of external development happens to be external to the law and a claim to enrich the authority unjustly, therefore, such claim cannot be held to be sustainable. Hence, the notices/orders impugned in this writ petition are liable to be quashed and are quashed. Thus, the writ petition is allowed, however, without imposing any cost."