Without Partition By Metes And Bounds, Co-Sharer Cannot Seek Recovery Of Possession: Supreme Court Clarifies Limits Of Order VII Rule 7 CPC Supreme Court Holds Plaintiff Entitled To Declaration Of Title Over Undivided Half Share Despite Claiming Entire Property Under Gift Deed Supreme Court Reaffirms Legality Of Remainder Of Natural Life Sentences Without Remission, Dismisses Batch Of Writ Petitions 'State Cannot Take Advantage Of Its Own Wrong': Supreme Court Holds Promotees Entitled To Count Ad Hoc Service For Seniority If Within Quota 'Elevators Are Common Carriers, Entail Heightened Duty of Care': Supreme Court Upholds NCDRC Order Holding OTIS Principally Liable For Death Due To Malfunctioning Lift Supreme Court Dismisses Compensation Claim Under Motor Vehicles Act, Holds Reach Stacker Operating in Custom-Bonded ICD Area Is Not a "Motor Vehicle" Missing ACRs Due To Illegal Termination Cannot Block Higher Judicial Pay Scales: Supreme Court Grants Relief To Rajasthan Judicial Officer Subsequent Suit Generally Transferable To Court Where Earlier Suit On Same Subject Matter Is Pending: Allahabad High Court Successive Anticipatory Bail Maintainable Under BNSS If Fact Situation Changes Or Previous Findings Become Obsolete: Andhra Pradesh High Court Tenant's "Deemed Purchaser" Right Defeated By Retrospective Notification Under Section 88(1)(b) Of Tenancy Act: Bombay High Court Buyer Not Entitled To Refund Of Earnest Money Once Sale Deed Is Duly Executed Under The Agreement: Calcutta High Court Contradictory Pleas Vitiate Defence; Drawer Liable Even If Signed Blank Cheque Was Handed Over: Delhi High Court Working Mother's Relocation To Another City Not A Ground To Completely Deny Overnight Custody To Father: Karnataka High Court Civil Courts Barred From Granting Injunctions Against SARFAESI Actions Even If Partition Suit Is Maintainable: Kerala High Court S.147 NI Act Is A Special Law, Overrides S.320 CrPC; Offence Can Be Compounded At Any Stage Even After Dismissal Of Appeal: Madras High Court Appellate Court Can Allow Additional Evidence To Ensure Fair Adjudication Even If Not Produced In Trial: Madhya Pradesh High Court Police Can Freeze Bank Accounts Under Section 106 BNSS Upon Suspicion Of 'Proceeds Of Crime': Punjab & Haryana High Court

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