COURT
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DATE OF ORDER
28th APRIL 2023
BENCH
HON’BLE JUSTICE MR M.R.SHAH
PARTIES
APPELLANT- Mathura Vrindavan Development Authority & Another
RESPONDENT- Rajesh Sharma and Others
SUBJECT
OVERVIEW
- The fact and question of law is common subject matter in the various appeals that’s why court has clubbed them together.
- The present appeals are preferred before the apex court against the impugned order and judgement passed by the High Court of Allahabad in respective writ petitions.
- In the said judgement, High Court has quashed and set aside various demands notices which were raised by respective development authorities and State of UP.
- In this impugned judgement, High Court has has not set aside demand notices for levy of developmental charges/fees. However, as far as other demand notices are concerned except developmental charges, High Court has set aside them.
- High Court observed that as per section 41 of U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973, such levy on basis of orders issued by State Government is illegal and bad in law.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY APPLLEANT
- The learned counsel vehemently submitted that the orders issued by the state government to recover fees/charges under Section 41 of the said act is exercised for the interest of public at large.
- The orders issued for development of the areas which are included under the development authorities and is in the interest of the public.
- The counsel referred to the case of State of U.P. & Others v. Malti Kaul (Smt.) & Another (1986) wherein such levy towards the developmental charges were upheld by the Court.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY RESPONDENT
- The learned counsel as far other charges are concerned, they stand illegal in view of Section 15(2-A) of the Act, 1973.
- The counsel contended that as per Article 265 of the Indian Constitution, no levy/charges are allowed which are not un accordance to law.
- The counsel submitted that section 41 of U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973, is supervisory in nature. The state government can issue directions to the concerned developmental authorities.
- It was also submitted that under Section 41 of the said act, State is not permitted to issue orders to levy charges other than those mentioned in Section 15(2-A) of the given act.
JUDGEMENT
- The apex court disposed the present appeals.
- The court observed that any charges that are paid by the original writ petitioners except developmental charges under Section 15(2-A) are to be refunded with 6% interest per annum to the writ petitioners.
- The court quashed the decision of High Court un the case of State of U.P. v. Rekha Rani & Others where the levy of developmental charges/fees was set aside by the High Court.
- The court, however confirmed sanction layout plan, sub-division charges, impact fee etc.
- Court observed that levy of charges other than those mentioned under the section 15(2-A) of the said act will amount a hit on article 265 of the Indian Constitution.
- Court clarified that levy of development fee/charges is for area where development has been done or which is yet to be developed.
CONCLUSION
The Apex court observed that the High Court has rightly set aside the various demand notices by way of levy of inspection fee/supervision fee. The appeals were disposed as there was no substantial question of law that needed to addressed.
