Sri.Sandeep v. State of U.P. and Another

Court No. - 21 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 42211 of 2023 Petitioner :- Sri.Sandeep Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Dhiraj Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Nilamber Tripathi,Pawan Kumar Singh Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,Acting Chief Justice Hon'ble Donadi Ramesh,J.

¶1Heard Shri Dhiraj Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Rajeev Gupta, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondent and Shri Nilamber Tripathi, learned counsel for the Prayagraj Development Authority.

¶2The petitioner herein has challenged the demand notice dated 25.11.2023 issued by respondent no. 2 levying various charges for sanction of his building plan. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that various charges being demanded by the impugned notice do not fall within the purview of Section 15(2-A) of U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 or under Section 35 of the Act and are thus illegal. In support of his submission, he places reliance on the judgment of Supreme Court dated 28.4.2023 in the case of Civil Appeal No. 5645 of 2015 (Mathura Vrindavan Development Authority and Another Vs. Rajesh Sharma and Others).

¶3An affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Prayagraj Development Authority in Writ - C No. 41640 of 2023, annexing therewith an order dated 5.12.2023, by which it has been clarified that even in respect of notices already issued but amount has not been deposited, the PDA would apply the judgment of Supreme Court in Mathura Vrindavan Development Authority (supra).

¶4As the Prayagraj Development Authority has already issued clarification that it would apply the judgment of Supreme Court in Mathura Vrindavan Development Authority (supra) even in respect of notices already issued, therefore we dispose of the instant petition with liberty to Prayagraj Development Authority to issue fresh notice of demand, keeping in view the judgment of the Supreme Court in Mathura Vrindavan Development Authority (supra).

¶5As a result, the impugned demand notice dated 25.11.2023 would stand withdrawn in respect of the charges held to be not permissible by the Supreme Court in Mathura Vrindavan Development Authority (supra). (Donadi Ramesh, J.) (Manoj Kumar Gupta, A.C.J.) Order Date :- 7.12.2023/Mukesh Pal High Court of Judicature at Allahabad