MATHURA VRINDAVAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ANOTHER versus RAJESH SHARMA AND OTHERS

Citation: [2023] 4 S.C.R. 899 · Decided: 28-04-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.R. SHAH · Disposal: Disposed off

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
899
[2023] 4 S.C.R. 899
899
MATHURA VRINDAVAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY &
ANOTHER
v.
RAJESH SHARMA AND OTHERS
Civil Appeal No. 5645 of 2015)
APRIL 28, 2023
[M. R. SHAH AND C. T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ.]
U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 ss. 15(2-
A), 41 – Constitution of India – Art. 265 – The dispute before the
High Court by way of various writ petitions was with respect to
challenge to the various demand notices by way of external/internal
development charges, inspection fee/supervision fee while granting
of sanction layout plan, development charges, sub-division charges,
stacking charges and impact fee etc – Except in one case, namely,
Rekha Rani, in all other cases, the Allahabad High Court as such
has upheld the levy of development charges/fees – On appeal, held:
Insofar as the levy of development fees/charges is concerned, the
issue is now not res integra, in view of the direct decision of Supreme
Court in the case of Malti Kaul and after taking into consideration
the entire scheme and the relevant provisions of the Act, 1973, more
particularly ss. 14, 15(2-A), 41 & 59 of the Act, 1973, Supreme
Court has upheld the levy of development charges/fees – Under the
circumstances, the High Court has rightly upheld the levy of
development fees/charges except in the case of Rekha Rani and the
decision of the High Court in the case of Rekha Rani quashing and
setting aside the levy of development charges/fees thus is
unsustainable and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside
and the levy of development charges/fees, which otherwise is
permissible under section 15(2-A) of the Act, 1973 is to be upheld.
Disposing of the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. Insofar as the levy of development fees/charges
is concerned, the issue is now not res integra, in view of the
direct decision of this Court in the case of Malti Kaul. After taking
into consideration the entire scheme and the relevant provisions
of the Act, 1973, more particularly Sections 14, 15(2-A), 41 & 59
of the Act, 1973, this Court has upheld the levy of development
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
900
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 4 S.C.R.
charges/fees. Therefore, the issue with respect to levy of
development charges/fees is concerned, the same is concluded
by this Court in the case of Malti Kaul. Under the circumstances,
as such the High Court has rightly upheld the levy of development
fees/charges except in the case of Rekha Rani. The decision of
the High Court in the case of Rekha Rani quashing and setting
aside the levy of development charges/fees thus is unsustainable
and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside and the levy
of development charges/fees, which otherwise is permissible
under section 15(2-A) of the Act, 1973 is to be upheld. [Para
6][905-F-H; 906-A-B]
2. 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. [Para
12][914-D-G]
3. 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 (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
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
901
charges/fees, namely, inspection fee/supervi

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.