Disposed

Kumari Savita Devi v. Union of India and 3 Others

Allahabad HC4 Jul 2023WRIC/35070/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner challenged a rejection of her proposal to set up a retail outlet due to an alleged impact fee liability. The High Court permitted the petitioner to approach the Corporation regarding the legal position post a recent Supreme Court judgment and disposed of the petition.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner permitted to approach the Corporation in light of the Supreme Court judgment for a fresh decision; writ petition disposed.

Kumari Savita Devi Vs Union of India and 3 Others — Landlord and Tenant | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:132052-DB

¶2

Court No. - 21

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 35070 of 2021 Petitioner :- Kumari Savita Devi Respondent :- Union Of India And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Pankaj Kumar Tyagi Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.

¶4

Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J. Hon'ble Manish Kumar Nigam,J.

¶5

Heard Shri Pankaj Kumar Tyagi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Awadhesh Narain Dubey, learned counsel for respondent No.4.

¶6

None is present on behalf of respondents No.1 to 3 although it is revised call.

¶7

The petitioner is aggrieved by communications dated 21.8.2021 and 12.10.2021 by the respondent - Corporation to the petitioner informing her that it would not be economically viable for the Corporation to accept the proposal for installation of new retail outlet on the land offered by the petitioner as a huge sum was liable to be paid as impact fee to Meerut Development Authority.

¶8

Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a recent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mathura Vrindavan Development Authority and Another vs. Rajesh Sharma and others and other connected appeals; 2023 SCC Online SC 530, 2023 0 Supreme (SC) 426 , in respect of his contention that the Development Authority is not entitled to realize impact fee as the same is not contemplated under the provisions of the U.P. Urban

¶9

Planning and Development Act, 1973.

¶10

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.4 is not in a position to dispute the said submission.

¶11

Having regard to the above judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, we permit the petitioner to approach the respondent - Corporation and apprise it of the legal position which now emerges after the judgment of the Supreme Court, so that a fresh decision, in accordance with law, is taken by the Corporation in respect of the proposal submitted by the petitioner for setting up of the retail outlet.

¶12

In view of the above, the writ petition stands disposed of .

¶13

Order Date :- 4.7.2023 Rishabh

¶14

[Manish Kumar Nigam, J.] [Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.]

¶15

Digitally signed by :- RISHABH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Kumari Savita Devi v. Union of India and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kumari Savita Devi v. Union of India and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Radhey Shyam Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Karamveer Krishak Vikas Samiti and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Vanvari Lal and 25 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Wakeel Ahmad Vs State of U P and 3 Others

M/S Hindustan Auto Mobile Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Narendra Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others