Ram Bharose vs State Of U.P. Thru Secy. And Others
2012 Latest Caselaw 1635 ALL

Citation : 2012 Latest Caselaw 1635 ALL
Judgement Date : 11 May, 2012

Allahabad High Court

Ram Bharose vs State Of U.P. Thru Secy. And Others on 11 May, 2012

Bench: R.K. Agrawal, Mushaffey Ahmad




HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 21
 

 
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 22870 of 2012
 

 
Petitioner :- Ram Bharose
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Secy. And Others
 
Petitioner Counsel :- Shamim Ahmed
 
Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,D.S. Chauhan
 

 
Hon'ble R.K. Agrawal,J.

Hon'ble Mushaffey Ahmad,J.

By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the levy and demand of Rs. 7,14,183.39 towards Vahya Vikas Shulk by the Mathura Vrindavan Development Authority, Mathura as per demand notices dated 31.3.2012 and 13.9.2010 filed as Annexure 7 to the writ petition.

The facts in brief are that the petitioner had applied for sanction of map on 11.8.2003 which the Mathura Vrindavan Development Authority had been pleased to sanction the map on certain conditions. The authority had levied betterment charges of Rs. 3,85,629/- and Rs. 30,507/- as supervision charge vide memo. dated 28.8.2003 which was deposited by the petitioner and, thereafter, constructions were made as per the sanctioned map. To the utter surprise of the petitioner, vide order dated 31.3.2012 and 13.9.2010 the petitioner was required to deposit a sum of Rs.7,14,183.39 towards external betterment charges. The demand has been challenged by the petitioner on the ground that the authority can not make such a demand as it is not backed by any provisions of law. Reliance has been placed upon a recent Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Dr. Umesh Chandra Maheshwari Versus Mathura/Vrindavan Development Authority being Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 35372 of 1998 decided on 27.04.2010 in which this Court had held that external betterment charges can not be levied as it has no sanction of law.

Shri A.K. Tripathi, advocate holding brief of Shri D.S. Chauhan, advocate, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No. 2 & 3 could not point out any distinction in the aforesaid case of Dr. Umesh Chandra Maheshwari.

The facts being similar, therefore, respectfully following the decision of the Division Bench in the case of Dr. Umesh Chandra Maheshwari, we set-asidethe recovery citation dated 31.3.2012 and 13.9.2010 filed as Annexure 7 to the writ petition.

The writ petition succeeds and is allowed.

Order Date :- 11.5.2012