Development charges cannot be levied on land that is already developed and in use prior to the enactment of relevant provisions in the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966.

JUDGMENT

M.W.CHANDWANI, J. - Heard.

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard learned counsel for the parties.

3. The petition challenges demand notice dtd. 17/7/2019 whereby the respondent levied various charges including development charge on the building and land of the petitioner. The thrust of grievances in this writ petition is about levy of the development charge on the developed land of the petitioner.

4. It is urged that despite of the fact that land is already developed in the form of plot prior to 1992, the respondent, while sanctioning revised plan submitted by the petitioner for reconstruction of the building, levied development charge also on land illegally. The principal reliefs prayed in this writ petition are as follows:

"(a) quash and set aside the impugned order dtd. 19/3/2020 and the demand notices dtd. 17/07/2019, insofar as they levy development charges of Rs.61, 88, 757.00, Heritage Fess of Rs.2, 03, 580.00 (2% of Development Charges), Workers' Welfare Construction Cess at Rs.15, 57, 290.00, Security Deposit of Rs.55, 000.00 for earth removal, etc., and an amount of Rs.5, 08, 724.00 towards 'Plinth Area Check', which are clearly without any authority of law, and without any factual or legal basis. (Annexure-P Collectively).

(b) Quash and set aside the impugned order dtd. 11/4/2014 (Annexure-I), and further direct the Respondent- Corporation to forthwith issue Part Occupancy Certificate to the Petitioner, in terms of the application dtd. 1/4/2014, filed by the Petitioner."

5. Facts germane for disposal of the petition are as follows:

6. The petitioner is a charitable trust which owns Plot no. 56 situated at Temple Road, Civil Lines, Nagpur. Four houses were constructed on the said plot prior to 1992. The petitioner proposed to reconstruct a building on the said plot. In the year 2007, the petitioner applied to the respondent for requisite permission for material alteration in houses by submitting the plan. The respondent issued demand notice seeking development charge of Rs.2, 07, 363.00 on2, 07, 363/- on building under Sec. 124A of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1966"). The petitioner accordingly paid the entire amount. The respondent issued building permit and commencement certificate for construction of the said building. After completion of the building, a request for grant of occupancy certificate was made to the respondent. The respondent found that the petitioner has deviated from the sanctioned plan and therefore, rejected the application for occupancy certificate. A revised plan came to be submitted by the petitioner to the respondent. On 15/6/2017, while sanctioning the revised plan, the respondent issued the impugned demand notice to the petitioner asking the petitioner to pay the total amount of 70, 26, 847/-, Rs.2, 07, 363.00 on which includes development charge of Rs.2, 07, 363.00 on60, 60, 056/- on land, which is under challenge in this writ petition.

7. In affidavit-in-reply, the respondent has contended that inadvertently, it did not levy the development charge on the land while sanctioning the earlier building plan in the year 2008, therefore, the respondent included the development charge in respect of the land in subsequent demand notice when the revised plan of the building is submitted. The petitioner is required to pay the development charge on the land as per Sec. 124A of the Act of 1966. According to the respondent, the land in question is not a developed land. The respondent has rightly issued the impugned demand notice asking the petitioner to pay the development charge on the land.

8. Shri S. V. Manohar, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner would submit that in the year 2007, the petitioner had proposed to construct new building by material alteration in the existing houses constructed on the land in question. At that time, the respondent levied the development charge on the building and not on