LexSTATE OF U.P. AND ORS. ETC. versus SMT. MALTI KAUL AND ANR. ETC.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
-\
}.
......
_,
STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. ETC.
v.
SMT. MALTI KAUL AND ANR. ETC.
AUGUST 21, 1996
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.)
U.P. Urba11 Pla11ning and Developme11t Act, 1973 :
Sectio11s 2(a) (e) (f) (g) (h) (i), 3, 7, 14, 33, 41, 56 and 59.
Development Authority-Power to levy development fee-Respondents
filed plans for grant of sanction-Levy of developmellt fee-Challenge-High
Court holding that development authority was devoid of power to levy
development fe~Appeal-lleld Act specifically gives power to development
authority to levy development fee-High Court erred in holding that there is
no provision under the Act or the Rules to levy the development fee.
Development Authority-Power to levy stacking charges (Malva Char-
ges) or water charges in advanc~A11y person using a public place for stackidg
material for construction has to pay prescribed fee and charges for user of the
water-But development authority has no power to levy in advance the charges
for stacking the material or user of the water.
Fee-Nature of leVJ{..,evy of fee is a compulsory exaction for services
rendered as quid pro quo.
Alunedabad Development Authority v. Pasawalla, [1992) 3 SCR 328,
held inapplicable.
The Hingir-Rampur Coal Co. Ltd v. The State of Orissa, (1961) 2 SCR
537, referred to.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 9281 of
1995 Etc.
From the Judgment and Order dated 21.4.95 of the Allahabad High
Court in C.M.W.P. No. 34440 of 1994.
A.B. Rohtagi, Ashok K. Srivastava, M.P. Midha, Bharat Sangal, H.M.
A
B
c.
D
E
F
G
Singh, Praveen Swarup Promod Swarup, Prashant Kumar and Joseph H
9
10
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996) SUPP. 5 S.C.R.
A
Pokkatt for the appearing parties.
B
c
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
Application for intervention is dismissed. Leave granted in the Spe-
cial Leave Petition.
These appeals arise from the judgment of the. Allahabad High Court
dated April 21, 1995 declaring that the appellants are devoid of power to
levy the development fee under the U.P. Urban Planning and Development
Act, 1973 (11of1973) as amended from time to time (for short, the "Act").
The undisputed facts are that the appellant-authority was constituted
under Section 4 of the Act as a development authority. When the respon-
dents filed plans for grant of sanction, a demand was made of ·them to
deposit the development fee. Calling the demands in question, the above
appeals came to be filed. Consequently, declaration was made. In addition,
D the High Court also found that the demands for malva charges (stacking
charges) and water charges were violative of principles of natural justice.
Accordingly, it directed the appellants to give opportunity of being·heard
to the respondents and then levy charges. Calling the decision in question,
these appeals have came to be filed. The High Court concluded that there
E
is no provisions in the Act or the Rules made thereunder, the demand and
collect the development fee.
F
With a view to appn~ciate the contentions of the counsel on either
side and the findings recorded by the High Court, it is necessary to
ccinsider the relevant provisions of the Act.
Section 4 contemplates that the State Government may, by notifica-
tion in the Gazette, constitute, for the purpose of the Act, an authority
called "Development Authority" for any development area. "Development"
has been defined in Section 2 ( e) with its grammatical variations, to mean
the carrying out of building, engineering, mining or other operations in, on,
G over or under land, or the making of any material change in any building
or- land, and includes re--development. "Development Area" hl\s been
defined in Section 2 (f) to mean any area declared to be development area
under Section 3. It has been empowered, where the Government in exercise
of the power under Section 3 has declared that any area within the State
H requires to be developed according to the plan, to declare such area to be
•. ~- .
11
••l
i
STATE v. MALTIKAUL
11
a development area. Section 7 envisages the objects of the authority and A
gives power to the developing authority to acquire, hold, manage or dispose
of a land and any other property, to carry out building, engineering, mining
and other operations, to execute works in connection with the supply of
water and electricity, to dispose of sewage and to provide and maintain
other services and amenities and generally to do anythinExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.