# Smt. Chan Muni v. Allahabad Development Authority & Ors

- **Citation:** (2023) 7 ILRA 392
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-07-13
- **Case number:** Writ-C No. 24761 of 2003
- **Bench:** Siddhartha Varma, Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-chan-muni-v-allahabad-development-authority-ors-50321
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Civil Law - Constitution of India, 1950 -
Article 265 - U.P. Urban Planning and
Development Act, 1973 - Section 15(2-A) -
Authority
shall
be
entitled
to
levy
development
fees,
mutation
charges,
stacking fees and water fees- Held:
Development Authority can demand only
external development fees, stacking fees
and water fees at the time of sanctioning
the map and no other fees/charges can be
demanded by the Development Authority.
Levy of other charges which are not
mentioned u/s 15(2-A) of the Act, 1973
are hit by Article 265 of the Constitution
of India. Article 265 clearly prohibits levy
of tax/fees/charges except in accordance
with law and/or as provided under the
statute. Demand notice issued by the
Development Authority so far as it asks the
petitioner to deposit fees and charges other
than external development fees, stacking
fees and water fees, such as permit fee, subdivision charge, inspection fee and open
area penalty quashed (Para 8, 9)

Allowed. (E-5)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

392 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

"Suppression
of
a
material
document would also amount to a fraud on
the court.

Although, negligence is not fraud,
it can be evidence of fraud."

24. The aforesaid Authorities have
been considered by the Apex Court in the
case of Hamza Haji v. State of Kerala
reported in JT 2006 (8) SC 215.

25. The Assistant Registrar, though
not a court of law, exercises quasi judicial
or even administrative powers under
Societies Registration Act, 1860, hence the
ratio of law referred to hereinabove shall
also apply to the proceedings giving rise to
the instant writ petition.

26. The submission of learned Senior
Counsel that the Assistant Registrar has
traveled beyond his power and jurisdiction
does not impress the Court in the facts and
circumstances of the case as the scope of
the complaint made by respondent no.3 was
to examine the validity of the meeting
dated
25.12.2021
and,
once,
cogent
reasoning has been assigned and as also
observed by this Court by perusing the said
proceedings that the same were full of
infirmities, I do not find any ground to
interfere in the order impugned.

27. The writ petition lacks merit and
is, accordingly, dismissed.
----------
(2023) 7 ILRA 392
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 13.07.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SIDDHARTHA VARMA, J.
THE HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR SINGH
DESHWAL, J.
Writ-C No. 24761 of 2003

Smt. Chan Muni ...Petitioner
Versus
Allahabad Development Authority & Ors.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri J.P. Pandey

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri S.K. Dwivedi

Civil Law - Constitution of India, 1950 -
Article 265 - U.P. Urban Planning and
Development Act, 1973 - Section 15(2-A) -
Authority
shall
be
entitled
to
levy
development
fees,
mutation
charges,
stacking fees and water fees- Held:
Development Authority can demand only
external development fees, stacking fees
and water fees at the time of sanctioning
the map and no other fees/charges can be
demanded by the Development Authority.
Levy of other charges which are not
mentioned u/s 15(2-A) of the Act, 1973
are hit by Article 265 of the Constitution
of India. Article 265 clearly prohibits levy
of tax/fees/charges except in accordance
with law and/or as provided under the
statute. Demand notice issued by the
Development Authority so far as it asks the
petitioner to deposit fees and charges other
than external development fees, stacking
fees and water fees, such as permit fee, subdivision charge, inspection fee and open
area penalty quashed (Para 8, 9)

Allowed. (E-5)

List of Cases cited:

1. Mathura Vrindavan Development Authority &
anr. Vs Rajesh Sharma & ors. 2023 SCC OnLine
SC 530

2. Sri Krishna Kant Verma & anr. Vs St. of U.P.
Thru. Secy. Nagar Vikas & ors. (Writ C No. 9617
of 2010) dt 24.05.2023

3. Ravi Agrawal Vs St. of U.P. Thru Secy. & ors.
(Writ C No. 36358 of 2013) dt 4.7.2023
7 All. Smt. Chan Muni Vs. Allahabad Dvevelopment Authority & Ors.
393
(Delivered by Hon'ble Arun Kumar Singh
Deshwal, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
parties.

2. Through present writ petition, the
petitioner has challenged the demand notice
dated 30.5.2003 which was issued to him
by Allahabad Development Authority at the
time of sanctioning the map submitted by
the petitioner.

3. The aforesaid demand notice issued
by the Allahabad Development Authority,
demanded
permit
fee,
water
charge,
stacking
fee,
sub-division
charge,
development charge, inspection fee and
open area penalty.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner
has challenged the aforesaid demand notice
on the ground that only those charges/fees
can be demanded by the Development
Authority which are referable to Section
15(2-A) of the U.P. Urban Planning and
Development
Act,
1973
(hereinafter
referred to as "Act, 1973"). Learned
counsel
for
the
petitioner,
therefore,
submits that only those charges/fees can be
levied at the time of sanctioning the map by
the Development Authority for which the
Act, 1973 authorises the Development
Authority and the State Government in
exercise of power u/s 41 of the Act, 1973
cannot authorise/permit the Development
Authority to levy charges/fees which are
not mentioned in the Act, 1973. Section
15(2-A) of the Act, 1973 is being quoted as
below:-

"15(2-A). The Authority shall be
entitled to levy development fees, mutation
charges, stacking fees and water fees in
such manner and at such rates as may be
prescribed:

Provided that the amount of
stacking fees levied in respect of an area
which is not being developed or has not
been developed, by the Authority, shall be
transferred to the local authority within
whose local limits such area is situated."

5. In support of his contention,
learned counsel for the petitioner relied
upon the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Mathura Vrindavan Development
Authority & Anr. vs. Rajesh Sharma &
Ors. 2023 SCC OnLine SC 530 in which
the Apex Court held that except the charges
mentioned in the Section 15(2-A) of the
Act,
1973,
namely,
development
fees/charges, mutation charges, stacking
fees and water charges, no other charge can
be levied by the Development Authority.

6. 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
has no jurisdiction to demand charges,
other than external development fees,
stacking fees and water fees. Section 15(2A) of the Act, 1973 very clearly prescribes
the charges which can be levied by the
Development Authority like development
fees, mutation charges, stacking fees and
water fees, therefore, even the State
Government u/s 41 of the Act, 1973 cannot
issue direction or permission to the
Development Authority to levy the charges
which are not mentioned in Section 15(2A) of the Act, 1973. Hon'ble Supreme
Court also in the judgement of Mathura
Vrindavan
Development
Authority
(Supra) in paragraph Nos. 23, 24 and 25
observed as under: -
394 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

"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, sub-division charges,
impact fee etc.

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.

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."

(emphasis added)

7. This Court in the judgement of Sri
Krishna Kant Verma and Anr. Vs. State of
U.P. Thru. Secy. Nagar Vikas and Ors.
(Writ C No. 9617 of 2010) decided on
24.05.2023 as well as in the judgement of
Ravi Agrawal vs. State of U.P. Thru Secy.
and 4 others (Writ C No. 36358 of 2013)
decided on 4.7.2023 quashed similar
demand notices relying upon the judgement
of
Mathura
Vrindavan
Development
Authority (Supra).

8. This Court is of the considered
view that levy of other charges which are
not mentioned u/s 15(2-A) of the Act, 1973
are hit by Article 265 of the Constitution of
India because Article 265 clearly prohibits
7 All. Prabhakant & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
395
levy
of
tax/fees/charges
except
in
accordance with law and/or as provided
under
the
statute.
Therefore,
the
Development Authority can demand only
external development fees, stacking fees
and water fees at the time of sanctioning
the map and no other fees/charges can be
demanded by the Development Authority.

9. In view of the above, the demand
notice dated 30.5.2003, issued by the
Allahabad Development Authority so far as
it asks the petitioner to deposit fees and
charges other than external development
fees, stacking fees and water fees, is hereby
quashed and the notice, so far as it demands
external development fees, stacking fees
and water fees, is valid and the petitioner is
liable to pay the same.

10. Any deposit 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 a period
of three months from today.

11. With the aforesaid observations,
the writ petition is allowed.
----------
(2023) 7 ILRA 395
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 13.07.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAHUL CHATURVEDI, J.

Application u/s 482 No. 398 of 2023
and
Application u/s 482 No. 8168 of 2023

Prabhakant & Anr. ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opp. Parties
Counsel for the Applicants:
Sri Shailendra Kumar Tripathi, Sri Anujrag Dubey

Counsel for the Opp. Parties:
G.A.

Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code,
1973 - Sections - 161, 173(2) & 482 - UP
Revenue Code, 2006 - Sections 4(14), 67,
67(1), 67(2), 145 & 210 - Prevention of
Damages to Public Property Act, 1984 -
Sections 2(b), 3, 3(2)A, 4, 5 & 6:-
Application U/s 482 - challenging the entire
criminal proceeding as well as the charge-sheet
& impugned summoning orders - Encroachment
over Govt. lands - FIR - Investigation - chargesheet - Whether the charge-sheeted accused
persons could be branded as they have
committed
the
wrongful
occupation
and
possession or mischief by encroaching upon
land belonging to Central Govt./St. Govt. or any
other local authorities or its undertaking - court
finds that - taking into gravity of offence and its
nature in which there is no criminality as such
and the apt remedy would be to proceed
against erring so called encroacher u/s 67 of UP
Revenue Code and get the land in dispute
demarcated - it is the case exclusively falls
within domain of concerned revenue authority
to impose fine, if any, after taking whole
exercise as per the provisions of law - held, -
needles to mention on the previous occasions at
least a dozen of the cases of different Benches
of this Court in different proceedings have
condemned and deprecated this practice of
taking cognizance on a printed proforma, but it
seems that the concern Magistrate repeatedly in
utter defiance of the directions of this Court are
still taking cognizance on a printed proforma
without applying their judicial mind - this is
wholly unacceptable - consequently, these
applications u/s 482 Cr.P.C. stands allowed - the
matter remanded back for fresh consideration
by the court concerned directions issued
accordingly. (Para - 19, 22, 23, 24)

Applications u/s 482 allowed. (E-11)

List of Cases cited:

1. In Re. Destruction of Public and Private
Properties, In Re. Vs St. of A.P. & ors.(2009 vol.
5 SCC 212),