![[U.P. UPD Act] State Cannot Permit Development Authorities To Levy Charges Other Than Those Provided U/s. 15(2-A): SC](https://www.verdictum.in/h-upload/2023/05/01/1496840-j-mr-shah-j-jb-pardiwalasc.webp "[U.P. UPD Act] State Cannot Permit Development Authorities To Levy Charges Other Than Those Provided U/s. 15(2-A): SC")
[U.P. UPD Act] State Cannot Permit Development Authorities To Levy Charges Other Than Those Provided U/s. 15(2-A): SC
|Noting that the intention of the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 is to levy only those charges/fees provided/mentioned under Section 15(2-A) of the Act, 1973, the Supreme Court held that levy of other charges can be said to be hit by Article 265 of the Constitution of India.
A two-judge Bench of Justice M.R Shah and Justice J.B Pardiwala observed that "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"
Advocate Anil Katiyar appeared for the Appellant and Advocate Tejaswi Kumar Pradhan appeared for the Respondent.
In a nutshell, the appeals had been preferred challenging the judgment whereby the High Court had set aside the demand notices except the levy of development fees/charges. The dispute before the High Court was with respect to a 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. However, other than development fees/charges, more particularly the subdivision charges etc., the High Court had set aside such levy and/or demand notices on the ground that U.P Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 did not permit the levy of other charges other than provided under Section 15(2-A) of the Act, 1973. The High Court also held that such levy based on the orders issued by the State Government in exercise of powers under Section 41 of the Act, 1973, was illegal. Further, the levy of other charges, other than development fees/charges was held to be bad in law and in violation of Article 265 of the Constitution of India.
After considering the submissions insofar as the levy of other charges by way of inspection fee/supervision fee while granting of sanction layout plan, sub-division charges, stacking charges and impact fee etc., except levy of development charges/fees, was concerned, the Apex Court observed that as per Section 15(2-A) of the Act, 1973, the Development Authority can levy only those charges, namely, development fees, mutation charges, stacking fees and water fees.
"The Act, 1973 does not permit levy of other charges other than provided under Section 15(2-A) of the Act, 1973," added the Court.
The Bench further noted that the power exercisable under Section 41 by the State, as such, is supervisory in nature, and under the said provision, the State Government can issue various directions to the Development Authorities for implementation of the provisions of the said Act.
Observing that as per Article 265 of the Constitution, there shall not be any levy of tax/fees/charges except in accordance with law and/or as provided under the statute, the Bench concluded that 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.
Accordingly, the Court confirmed the levy of development charges/fees by the various Development Authorities of the State of U.P and disposed of the appeals.
Cause Title: Mathura Vrindavan Development Authority & Anr. v. Rajesh Sharma and Ors.