NISHA KUMARI Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this bunch of writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged various fees imposed by the different development authorities constituted under the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as '1973 Act') in the State of U.P. On an application filed by the petitioners seeking permission for carrying out development in The land/building operations, memo of demand has been issued by the Development Authorities imposing different fees/charges subject to which application seeking permission for carrying out development was to be granted. Aggrieved by the various fees and charges raised by different Development Authorities, the petitioners have come up in this Court by means of these writ petitions. Earlier also different fees and charges imposed by the Development Authorities were challenged by means of writ petitions in this Court, which writ petitions have been decided by this Court from time to time, details of which shall be noted hereinafter. Writ petition No. 23281 of 2001 Sabia Khan and others v. Allahabad Development Authority and others, was filed in this Court questioning the legality/validity of water charges/Malba charges/development charges, sub-division charges and open area charges. The writ petition was allowed by this Court by its judgment and order dated 1.7.2003. Against the order dated 1.7.2003, Allahabad Development Authority and others filed Special Leave Petition and the Apex Court vide its judgment and order dated 11.7.2006 in Civil Appeal No. 4351 of 2004 connected with other appeals, set aside the order of the High Court and matters were remitted to the High Court for consideration of the matter afresh. The judgment of the Apex Court is in Allahabad Development Authority v. Sabia Khan and others, 2006 6 SCC 699. Some of the writ petitions in this bunch of cases are the writ petitions which have come up for hearing consequent to the order of the Apex Court dated 11.7.2006. The writ petitions included in this bunch challenge the action of the Allahabad Development Authority, Agra Development Authority, Gorakhpur Development Authority, Moradabad Development Authority, Meerut Development Authority and Mathura Vrindavan Development Authority. The writ petitions relating to one Development Authority have been included in one group. For example in Group-A cases pertaining to Allahabad Development Authority have been included.

(2.) In writ petition No. 61669 of 2010, counter-affidavit, supplementary counter-affidavit have been filed by the Allahabad Development Authority. The Division Bench hearing the writ petition passed various orders directing the Allahabad Development Authority to give various details, in compliance of which affidavits have been filed. The State of U.P. has also filed detailed counter-affidavit in the writ petition. Rejoinder-affidavit has also been filed by the petitioners in the writ petition. The writ petition No. 61669 of 2010 is being treated as the leading writ petition. The facts of writ petition No. 61669 of 2010 Smt. Nisha Kumari v. State of U.P., are to be noted in detail. Facts of some other writ petitions in which learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners have pointed out some additional facts and raised certain additional arguments have also to be noted for appreciating all the issues which have arisen in this bunch of writ petitions. This bunch of writ petitions were earlier heard in the year 2011. Various orders have been passed directing the State Government and Development Authority to file affidavits. Adjournments were sought by the Allahabad Development Authority of several occasions due to which the writ petitions could not be earlier decided. From 13.5.2014 in this bunch of writ petitions hearing began. On 14.5.2014, Sri A.P. Paul, learned Counsel appearing for the Allahabad Development Authority made a request for postponing the hearing of the bunch of writ petitions on the ground that a writ petition being writ petition No. 56485 of 2013 (and other connected writ petitions) Smt. Rekha Rani v. State of U.P., were allowed by a Division Bench of this Court on 12.12.2013 which writ petitions involved several common issues which are sought to be raised in these writ petitions and against the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court, Allahabad Development Authority filed Special Leave Petition No. 7065 of 2014 in which the Apex Court vide its order dated 24.3.2014 has stayed the operation of the judgment, hence, hearing of this bunch of writ petitions be adjourned awaiting the decision of the Apex Court. We considered the aforesaid prayer made by Sri A.P. Paul and passed a detail order on 14.5.2014 declining the prayer of Sri A.P. Paul for postponing the hearing of the writ petitions and proceeded to hear the matters on merit. The matter was heard on 13.5.2014, 14.5.2014 and 15.5.2014.

(3.) Facts giving rise to the leading writ petitions need to be noted first. Smt. Nisha Kumari, the petitioner purchased a plot measuring 213.14 square meters being plot No. 3/9, Auckland Road, Allahabad by registered sale-deed dated 19.11.2009. Plot No. 3/9 is a part of original Nazul plot No. 3 measuring 1 acre 655 square yards (5494 square yards) or 4594.36 square meters. The plot No. 3 was leased on 29.4.1932 in favour of one K.N. Mukherjee, Under various Government Orders issued from time to time an area of 218.14 square meters was converted as a freehold land on an application submitted by Sanjay Gupta, the vendor of the petitioner by lease deed dated 1.1.2005 which is known as plot No. 3/9. For different other areas free hold deeds were got executed out of Nazul Plot No. 3. The petitioner submitted an application for sanction of a building plan in accordance with Section 15 of the 1973 Act. A fee of Rs. 900/- was deposited by the petitioner on 5.7.2010. A demand note dated 24.7.2010 was issued by the Allahabad Development Authority communicating approval in principle of the sanctioned plan subject to fulfilling certain conditions which included deposit of the following fees: