SUBHASH CHANDRA SRIVASTAVA Vs. GORAKHPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY GORAKHPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) P K. Jain, J. The petitioner has come up with following prayers: (i) To command the Respondent not to charge subdivision charges stated in the notice dated 5-11-88 as contained in Annexure-3. (ii) To direct the respondent to hear him in regard to development, penalty and sub-charges. (iii) To command the respondent to release the approved map of his house.

(2.) HIS case is to this effect: (i) He was a joint tenure-holder of plot Nos. 551/1 and 552/1 situated in vil lage Mohaddipur, Tahsil Sadar, district Gorakhpur alongwith his brother Sudishta Naram Lal which was their ancestral property which stands recorded in their names in the revenue records. (ii) Some time in the year 1987 the lands were divided between them. (iii) The petitioner's brother Sudishta Narain Lal constructed a house on his share of land in the year 1987 after getting construction plan approved by the Respondent, the Gorakhpur Develop ment Authority, Gorakhpur. (iv) The petitioner also submitted map for construction of his house on 12-8-88. By letter dated 5-11-88 (as contained in Annexure-3) the respondent informed the petitioner that his map is technically cor rect but at the same time demanded Rs. 10,236. 40 as development charges, Rs. 21,780. 00 as Subdivision charges, Rs. 500/-as penalty charges and Rs. 2420. 00 as com pounding fee. (v) This demand is arbitrary, exces sive and illegal. As the land was ancestral no subdivision charges could have been levied by the respondent. When his brother had constructed house after get ting plan sanctioned no subdivision charges were levied. The development charges can also not be levied as the petitioner has already given his land for road. (vi) A representation was made by the petitioner on 17-11-88 but the respon dent has not taken any step to dispose of the said representation or to sanction the map submitted by the petitioner.

(3.) SHRI U. N. Sharma, the learned Counsel for j the Respondent contended that the petitioner in his representation dated 17-11-88 as contained in Annexure-4 of course, did not make a mention that the amount 6f penalty and compounding charges was i not being demanded in ac cordance with any provisions of law or statutory Rules and after affording proper opportunity of being heard to the petitioner On our query as to where are the G. O. or how the charges are being demanded a request was made before us by Sri U. N. Sharma, the learned Counsel for the Respondent to bring on the record copy of the relevant G. O. , statutory provisions and resolution, if any. Our Findings: