Disposed

Smt. Sushma Sachan v. State of U.P. and Others

Allahabad HC3 Dec 2018WRIC/18000/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court directed the petitioner to deposit sub-division charges and development charges pending the outcome of civil appeals in the Supreme Court, with a provision for refund and interest if the appeals are dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Deposition of sub-division and development charges pending Supreme Court appeals; refund with 6% simple interest if appeals are dismissed.

Smt. Sushma Sachan Vs State of U.P. and Others — Property and Title | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 39

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 18000 of 2008

¶3

Petitioner :- Smt. Sushma Sachan Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajeev Lochan Shukla,S.P. Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,A.K. Misra,R.K.Pandey

¶4

Hon'ble B. Amit Sthalekar,J. Hon'ble Piyush Agrawal,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Rajeev Lochan Shukla and S.P. Pandey, learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

¶6

The petitioner in the writ petition is seeking quashing of the order dated 12.02.2008 whereby a demand of Rs. 4,72,691.00 has been raised against the petitioner towards several charges by the Respondent Development Authoirty.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Nisha Kumari vs. State of U.P. and others, 2014(3) UPLBEC 2130 along with bunch of cases wherein similar charges came to be challenged disposed of the writ petition and quashed the demand for permit fee, subdivision charges/open area penalty, inspection charge, supervision charge, impact fee, Bandha charge, water charges, development charge e.t.c. and further issued directions that subdivision charges can be levied only when a development/construction is carried out by a person in violation of the bye-laws, Zonal Development Plan. However, the development charge fee was upheld.

¶8

It is informed that the respondents have given challenge to the judgement in the case of Nisha Kumari in Supreme Court and the Supreme Court has directed that in the meantime, operation of the impugned order shall remain stayed.

¶9

The judgement of Nisha Kumari as well as impact of the interim order of the Supreme Court came to be considered by another Division Bench headed by Hon'ble Chief Justice in Writ - C No. 61696 of 2017 (Smt. Sandhya vs. State of U.P. and 2 others) along with bunch of writ petitions. The Division Bench noticing the interim order of the Supreme Court with regard to sub-division charges disposed of the above writ petition vide judgement dated 8.5.2018 and directed that it would be open to the Development Authorities to levy/claim sub-division charges, pending hearing and final disposal of the

¶10

aforementioned civil appeals pending in the Supreme Court. The petitioners shall deposit sub-division charges subject to outcome of civil appeals pending in the Supreme Court and without prejudice to their right to seek refund of the same along with interest, if the civil appeals are ultimately dismissed. The directions of the Division Bench read as under :

¶11

"It would be open to the Development Authorities to levy/claim sub-division charges, pending hearing and final disposal of the aforementioned civil appeals pending in the Supreme Court. The petitioners shall deposit sub-division charges subject to outcome of civil appeals pending in the Supreme Court and without prejudice to their right to seek refund of the same along with interest, if the civil appeals are ultimately dismissed and the judgments of the aforementioned Division Benches are affirmed.

¶12

The Development Authorities henceforth while demanding subdivision charges shall make it clear in the notice itself that they are demanding/collecting sub-division charges subject to outcome of the civil appeals pending in the Supreme Court and shall refund the same with 6% simple interest in the event appeals are ultimately dismissed. At this stage, at the request of learned Senior Counsel/Counsel appearing for the petitioners to grant some breathing time to the petitioners to deposit sub-division charges, as demanded by impugned notices, we are inclined to grant time as prayed. The petitioners shall deposit the sub-division charges, if not deposited already, within a period of twelve weeks from today.

¶13

If there are any cases, in which the Development Authorities have charged or are charging sub-division charges, where layout plans are sanctioned, it would be open to all such persons/petitioners to challenge such demand in appeals under Section 15 (5) of the Act, 1973.

¶14

With these observations, all the petitions are disposed of."

¶15

In this view of the matter, we dispose of the writ petition with a direction that the petitioner shall deposit the sub-division charges as also the development charge and other charges which shall be subject to the outcome of the civil appeals pending in the Supreme Court. In case the civil appeals are dismissed, the petitioners shall be entitled to refund of the same with simple interest of 6% per annum.

¶16

Order Date :- 3.12.2018 Rahul.

Smt. Sushma Sachan v. State of U.P. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Sushma Sachan v. State of U.P. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Mala Mishra Vs Allahabad Development Authority and Others

Nathuni Vs Cane Commissioner U.P. Lucknow and Others

Abhisar Impex Pvt. Ltd. Vs Chief Executive Officer Noida and Another

M/S Gun Gun Industries Vs State of U P and 2 Others

Mahesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Others

Sarita Gupta Vs Zonal Manager L.I.C. of India and Ors.