Allowed

Kriti Scanning Centre Private Limited Thru M.D. v. the Allahabad Development Authority Thru V.C. and Another

Allahabad HC16 May 2023WRIC/28937/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court held that the Allahabad Development Authority lacked jurisdiction to demand various fees under a demand notice, including water and impact charges. Relying on the Supreme Court's Mathura Vrindavan judgment, the Court quashed the notice regarding these charges, allowing only the External Development fee.

What did the court decide?

The demand notice was quashed except for the External Development fee; deposits made under the quashed heads are to be returned with 6% simple interest.

Kriti Scanning Centre Private Limited Thru M.D. Vs… — Company and Corporate | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:106880-DB

¶2

Court No. - 39

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 28937 of 2008

¶4

Petitioner :- Kriti Scanning Centre Private Limited Thru M.D. Respondent :- The Allahabad Development Authority Thru V.C. And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Rohit Agrawal,Ravi Kant Counsel for Respondent :- A.K. Misra

¶5

Hon'ble Salil Kumar Rai,J. Hon'ble Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal,J.

¶6

A supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner is taken on record.

¶7

List has been revised. The counsel for the petitioner is present. No one appears for the respondent, i.e., Allahabad Development Authority.

¶8

The present petition has been filed challenging the demand notice dated 16.5.2008 issued by the Allahabad Development Authority to the petitioner.

¶9

The aforesaid demand notice was issued after the petitioner submitted a building plan. In the demand notice, the petitioner was asked to deposit permit fee, Triveni Mahotsawa, External Development fee, water charges, stacking charges, sub division charges, open area penalty, inspection charges and Impact fee.

¶10

It has been argued by the counsel for the petitioner that in light of the Division Bench judgments of this Court in Shaukat Ali vs. Allahabad Development Authority, Allahabad & Anr. (2003) 2 UPLBEC 1573 and Smt. Nisha Kumari vs. State of U.P & Ors. 2014 6 ADJ 20 , the aforesaid demands except the demand for Extra Development fee are illegal and the petitioner cannot be asked to deposit the same. It has been argued that the Supreme Court in Mathura Vrindavan Development Authority & Anr. vs. Rajesh Sharma & Ors. 2023 SCC OnLine SC 530 has also held that, except Development Charges, the Development Authorities have no power to levy inspection fee, sub-division charges, impact fee, etc. while sanctioning layout plans.

¶11

We have perused the demand notice and the judgments referred by the counsel for the petitioner and find force in the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the Development Authority had no jurisdiction to demand charges, other than External Development

¶12

fee. Paragraph nos. 23, 24 and 25 of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Mathura Vrindavan (supra) are reproduced below : -

¶13

"23. Under the circumstances, in exercise of powers under Section 41 of the Act, 1973, the State could not have issued the orders permitting/allowing the Development Authorities to levy the charges/fees other than provided under Section 15(2-A) of the Act, 1973. At this stage, it is required to be noted that the levy of fees/charges provided under Section 15(2-A), all of them have been specifically defined under Section 2 of the Act, 1973. Therefore, the intention of the Act is to levy only those charges/fees provided/mentioned under Section 15(2-A) of the Act, 1973, otherwise the other charges also would have been defined under the Act, 1973. Levy of such other charges can be said to be hit by Article 265 of the Constitution of India. As per Article 265 of the Constitution of India, there shall not be any levy of tax/fees/charges except in accordance with law and/or as provided under the statute. Under the circumstances and in view of the above, the High Court has rightly set aside the various demand notices by way of levy of inspection fee/supervision fee while granting of sanction lay out plan, subdivision charges, impact fee etc.

¶14

24. 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 .

¶15

25. It is observed and directed that any amount already paid by the respective original writ petitioners other than the development charges/fees and the charges provided under Section 15(2-A), now be refunded to the respective original writ petitioners with 6% interest per annum, within a period of twelve months from today, of course after adjusting development charges/fees . It is made clear that we have not expressed anything on the levy of betterment charges, which, as such, is otherwise permissible under section 35 of the Act, 1973. It is also made clear that the order of refund shall be applicable only with respect to those original writ petitioners/persons who have challenged the demand notices and who were before the High Court. It is also observed and it is made clear that if any individual/original writ petitioner has any other grievances, it will be open for them to approach the High Court by way of independent proceedings. "

¶16

(emphasis added)

¶17

In view of the aforesaid, the demand notice dated 16.5.2008 issued

¶18

by the Allahabad Development Authority so far as it asks the petitioner to deposit the water charges, stacking charges, sub division charges, open area penalty, inspection charges, Permit fee, Triveni Mahotsawa and impact fee is hereby quashed. The notice so far as it demands External Development fee is valid and the petitioner is liable to pay the same.

¶19

Any deposits made by the petitioner under the heads for which the demand notice is quashed by this Court shall be returned to the petitioner by the Allahabad Development Authority with 6% simple interest per annum within six months from today.

¶20

With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is allowed .

¶21

Order Date :- 16.5.2023 Satyam

¶22

Digitally signed by :- SATYAM AGRAHARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Kriti Scanning Centre Private Limited Thru M.D. v. the Allahabad Development Authority Thru V.C. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kriti Scanning Centre Private Limited Thru M.D. v. the Allahabad Development Authority Thru V.C. and Another

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

Kiran Bhasin Vs U.P. State Industrial Development Corpn. and Another

Banwari Lal and Ors. Vs Kanpur Development Authority and Anr.

Zameer Khan Vs State of U.P. and Others

Rajballiaya and Others Vs State of U.P. and Others

Shiv Milan Singh Vs State of U.P. and Others

Sri Krishna Pal Singh Chauhan Vs State of U.P. and Others