Allahabad High Court
Smt. Meera Singh vs State Of U.P. Thru Secy. Nagar Vikas And ... on 12 September, 2025
Author: Mahesh Chandra Tripathi
Bench: Mahesh Chandra Tripathi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:161970-DB
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 34695 of 2009
Smt. Meera Singh
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. Thru Secy. Nagar Vikas And Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)
:
H.N. Singh
Counsel for Respondent(s)
:
C.S.C., A.K. Misra, Amit Dubey, B.K. Ojha, Brijesh Ojha, R.M. Pandey
Court No. - 29
HON'BLE MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, J.
HON'BLE ANISH KUMAR GUPTA, J.
1. Heard Shri H.N. Singh, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner, Shri Ambrish Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Shri B.K. Ojha, learned counsel for the respondent - Allahabad Development Authority now Prayagraj Development Authority (PDA).
2. The instant writ petition has been preferred in the year 2009 praying inter alia for the following relief:
"(i) Issue a suitable writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari call for the records of the case and quashing the demand note dated 6.7.2009 issued respondent no.5 (Annexure no.2to the writ petition) requiring the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.4,39,477.00 as a condition for sanction/ release of the petitioner 's building plan/ map.
(ii) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the authorities to release the respondent sanctioned map in favour of the petitioner without insisting upon the petitioner to deposit the alleged amount as stated in the impugned demand note dated 6.7.2009."
3. While entertaining the writ petition, the Division Bench has passed a detailed interim order on 28.07.2009. For ready reference, the same is reproduced hereinabelow:
"Heard Sri H.N. Singh, leamed Advocate in support of this petition and Sri A. K. Mishra, learned Advocate who represents the development authority.
Argument is that in respect to various kind of charges ie, development charges, open area sub divisional charges etc. large number of writ petitions are pending in this Court for being finally decided.
It is further submitted that in some of the cases 10 complete stay has been given to the demand in all heads and in some of the writ petitions partial stay has been granted.
In response to the aforesaid Sri Mishra jordista submits that in relation to one of the interim stay granted by this Court the matter went to the Apex Court and grant of stay by this Court was stayed there.
At this stage Sri Singh submits that so far all the charges in various heads, petitioner is ready to deposit and so far the open area penalty is concerned if the petitioner files affidavit giving undertaking to the respondent authority that in the event decision goes against her she will be depositing the amount in that head also and in that event respondent authority is not to suffer any injury and petitioner may be able to get her map released for the time being.
At this Sri Mishra submits that there is bonafide on the part of the petitioner in making submission and if she is to deposit all the charges along with an undertaking, as submitted above, then this Court may consider for passing appropriate orders.
Be as it may, in view of the fact that large number of writ petitions to resolve the same issue are pending in this Court and they are expected to be decided very shortly, this Court as an interim measure directs the petitioner to deposit entire amount in terms of the demand in various heads except the amount so covered by the open area penalty head. Petitioner is to file affidavit before the authority stating that as and when her prayer is not accepted by this Court she will deposit the amount within shortest possible time as directed by the authority.
If this is done then it will be for the respondent authority to permit release of the map and that will abide by final decision of this Court."
4. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has assailed the demand notice dated 06.07.2009 primarily on the ground that the Prayagraj Development Authority (PDA) has no authority in law to levy or realize any charges other than those specifically provided under Section 15(2-A) of the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973. It has been argued that the impugned notice includes several heads of demand such as sub-division charges, inspection fees, malba charges, open area penalty, and contribution towards Triveni Mahotsava, none of which find mention in the statute. The imposition of such levies is wholly arbitrary, without statutory sanction, and unconstitutional. It is further urged that the petitioner, despite serious financial prejudice, deposited the amounts demanded under protest, except the open area penalty, in order to avoid coercive action by the Authority. Reliance has been placed upon the recent judgment of the Hon?ble Supreme Court in Mathura Vrindavan Development Authority and another v. Rajesh Sharma and others (2023) 6 ADJ 11 (SC), wherein the Apex Court has categorically held that except for development fees, mutation charges, stacking fees, and water fees, no other charge can be realized by the Development Authorities. On the strength of the said pronouncement, it has been urged that the impugned notice is unsustainable in law and deserves to be quashed.
5. Shri B.K. Ojha, learned counsel for the respondent - PDA supports that the impugned demand notice dated 06.07.2009 by contending that the various heads of charges have been consistently realized by the Development Authorities across the State and that such levies are incidental to the grant of sanction of building plans and development permissions. It has further been urged that the petitioner, having voluntarily deposited most of the amounts demanded, is estopped from questioning the validity of such charges. The respondents have also placed reliance upon certain Government Orders issued from time to time to argue that the levy of inspection fee, malba charges, and contribution towards Triveni Mahotsava is traceable to administrative directions and is thus valid.
6. Having considered the rival submissions and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mathura Vrindavan Development Authority and another (supra), this Court finds that the levy of any charge not specifically authorized under Section 15(2-A) of the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 is impermissible. The Apex Court has categorically held that, apart from development fees, mutation charges, stacking fees, and water fees, no other levy can be imposed by the Development Authorities, and any demand raised under other heads is without statutory sanction and, therefore, unconstitutional. In the present case, the impugned demand notice dated 06.07.2009 includes several such unauthorized charges such as sub-division charges, inspection fees, malba charges, open area penalty, and Triveni Mahotsava contribution, which are clearly unsustainable in law. The petitioner has, in fact, already deposited the amounts demanded, barring the open area penalty, and such deposits are in excess in light of the law settled by the Apex Court.
7. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of the case, since the present writ petition has been pending before this Court since 2009 and the petitioner, on the strength of the interim order, has already deposited a substantial amount, and further, in view of the law laid down in Mathura Vrindavan Development Authority and another (supra), no useful purpose would be served by remitting the matter back to the PDA for passing any fresh order. Therefore, in order to give final quietus to the lis/dispute, the demand notice dated 06.07.2009 is quashed to the extent it pertains to charges not permissible under Section 15(2-A) of the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973. Since Shri H.N. Singh, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner, has fairly stated that the petitioner is not inclined to press for refund of the amounts already deposited, no direction for return of such money is being issued. However, the PDA shall not be entitled to realize any further amount from the petitioner under the impugned heads. To this limited extent, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
(Anish Kumar Gupta,J.) (Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.)
September 12, 2025
NLY
