Delay in Test Identification & Absence of Motive Fatal to Prosecution: Allahabad High Court Acquits Man for Murder Tokre Koli or Dhor Koli – Both Stand on Same Legal Footing: Bombay High Court Slams Scrutiny Committee for Disregarding Pre-Constitutional Records Consent Is No Defence When Victim Is Under 16: Delhi High Court Upholds Rape Conviction Granting Pre-Arrest Bail in Minor Rape Cases Would Send a Harmful Societal Signal: Delhi High Court Refuses Anticipatory Bail to Accused Citing POCSO’s Rigorous Standards Void Marriage No Shield Against Cruelty Charges: Karnataka High Court Affirms Section 498A Applies Even In Deceptive and Void Marital Relationships Consolidation Authorities Cannot Confer Ownership Or Alter Scheme Post Confirmation Without Due Process: Punjab & Haryana High Court Reaffirms Civil Court’s Jurisdiction Over Void Post-Scheme Orders Litigation Policy is Not Law, Can’t Enforce Guidelines Through Courts: Rajasthan High Court Refuses to Entertain Quo Warranto Against Additional Advocate General’s Appointment Police and Lawyers Are Two Limbs of Justice System: Rajasthan High Court Takes Suo Motu Cognizance in Police Misconduct Incident Sole Testimony, Forensic Gaps, and Withheld Witness: No Conviction Possible: Delhi High Court Affirms Acquittal in Murder Trial Daughter’s Right Extinguished When Partition Effected Prior to 2005 Amendment: Madras High Court Trial Courts Cannot Direct Filing of Challan After Conviction — Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes Directions Against DSP Veer Singh Rule 4 Creates Parity, Not a Parallel Pension Pipeline: Rajasthan High Court Denies Dual Pension to Ex-Chief Justice Serving as SHRC Chairperson Right to Be Heard Must Be Preserved Where Claim Has a Legal Basis: Orissa High Court Upholds Impleadment of Will Beneficiary in Partition Suit Long-Term Ad Hocism Is Exploitation, Not Employment: Orissa High Court Orders Regularization Of Junior Typist After 25 Years Of Service PIL Cannot Be a Tool for Personal Grievances: Supreme Court Upholds Municipal Body’s Power to Revise Property Tax After 16 Years Omission of Accused’s Name by Eyewitness in FIR is a Fatal Lacuna: Supreme Court Acquits Man Convicted of Murder Correction In Revenue Map Under Section 30 Isn’t A Tool To Shift Plot Location After 17 Years: Supreme Court Quashes High Court’s Remand Casteist Abuses Must Be In Public View: Supreme Court Quashes SC/ST Act Proceedings Where Alleged Insults Occurred Inside Complainant’s House Resignation Bars Pension, But Not Gratuity: Supreme Court Draws Sharp Line Between Voluntary Retirement and Resignation in DTC Employee Case

SC: UP Development Authorities can't levy charges other than specified under UP Urban Planning and Development Act

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


On 28 April 2023 , Supreme Court of India, in a recent judgement Mathura Vrindavan Development Authority & Another Vs. Rajesh Sharma and Others, has held that the various development authorities of the state of Uttar Pradesh have the power to levy development charges/fees, but not other charges such as inspection fees, supervision fees, sub-division charges, impact fees, etc. that were not specified under Section 15(2-A) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973.

The case came up before the apex court in a batch of appeals filed against a judgement of the Allahabad High Court that quashed and set aside various demand notices by way of levy of inspection fees, supervision fees, sub-division charges, impact fees, etc., by the various development authorities of Uttar Pradesh.

The State Government and the Development Authorities had contended that they had the power to levy such charges/fees under Section 41 of the Act, 1973, which provides that the State Government can issue various directions to the Development Authorities for the efficient administration of the Act. However, the apex court held that the power exercisable under Section 41 by the State and the Development Authorities is supervisory in nature, and the State Government's power to issue directions is confined to matters of policy and not any other.

The court referred to its earlier judgements in Malti Kaul v. State of Haryana and Poonam Verma v. Delhi Development Authority, wherein it was held that Section 41 of the Act, 1973, only envisages that the Development Authorities would carry out such directions that may be issued by the State Government from time to time for the efficient administration of the Act, and any direction issued must have a nexus with the efficient administration of the Act.

The court further held that under the circumstances and in view of the above, the High Court had rightly set aside the various demand notices by way of levy of inspection fees, supervision fees, sub-division charges, impact fees, etc., and confirmed the levy of development charges/fees by the various Development Authorities of Uttar Pradesh.

The court also 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 the date of the judgement, of course after adjusting development charges/fees.

The judgement has provided clarity on the power of the State Government and the Development Authorities in levying charges/fees under the Act, 1973, and has also provided relief to the original writ petitioners by directing the refund of amounts paid towards charges/fees that were not legally valid.

Mathura Vrindavan Development Authority & Another Vs. Rajesh Sharma and Others

[gview file="https://lawyer-e-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/28-Apr-2023-MATHURA-VRINDAVAN-DEVELOPMENT-AUTHORITY.pdf"]

Latest Legal News