SITA MISHRA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) R. Dayal, J. The petitioner submitted a building plan No. 1018/91 dated 11-11-1991 before respondent No. 2, the Gorakhpur Development Authority, for sanction. Respondent No. 2 through respondent No. 3 issued a demand notice dated 4-1-1992 requiring the petitioner to pay Rs. 8,093. 65 as development fees, Rs. 10,584 as sub-division fees and Rs. 2,646 as composition fees, so that the plan could be sanctioned. The petitioner has challenged all these demands on the ground that the respondents have no authority under the law to make such demands.

(2.) WE have heard Sri H. S. N. Tripathi, learned counsel for the peti tioner and Sri U. N. Sharma, learned counsel for respondents 2 and 3.

(3.) A bare perusal of Section 33 would show that it provides for two types of cases : one, where the' Development Authority is satisfied that any amenity in relation to any land in a development area has not been provid ed, but in the opinion of the authority it ought to have been or ought to be provided ; and second, where any development of the land for which permis sion, approval or sanction had been obtained under the Act or under any law in force before coming into force of the Act has not been carried out. In either of these cases the Authority may after affording the owner of the 1 and or the person providing or responsible for providing the amenity a reasonable opportunity to show cause, by order require him to provide the amenity or carry out the development within such time as may be specified in the order. If the amenity is not provided or any such development is not carried out within the time specified in the order, then the authority may itself provide the amenity or carry out the development or have it provided or carried out through such agency as it deems fit. But before doing this again an opportunity to show cause has to be provide as required by the proviso to sub-section (2 ). All expenses incurred by the authority or the agency may be recovered in the manner provided in sub- section (3 ). Thus Section 33 only authorises the Authority to recover the charges which have been incurred in carrying out the work which the person concerned failed to carry out without any satisfactory cause. This does not make any provision for levy of any fees on some uniform basis which does not have any relation to any expenses which may or may not have been incurred by the authority on account of sub-division of any plot. We, therefore, hold that Section 33 does not authorise the demand of sub-division fees as required by the impugned demand notice.