The main legal point established in the judgment is that the authority to levy development charges must be in existence at the time of granting permission, and the recovery of the amount of premium or charge must be ascertained while granting permission, without being vague or made subject to further conditions.

JUDGMENT

ANIL L.PANSARE, J. - Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the parties.

2. The Petitioner has put forth the following substantive prayer:-

"(i) Quash and set aside the impugned demand dtd. 15/1/2021 (Annexure-7) and communication dtd. 11/11/2021 (Annexure-12) issued by the Respondent No.3 and hold and declare that no development charges are recoverable from the Petitioner."

3. By the impugned communication, the Respondent No.3 - Nazul Tahildar, raised a demand for a sum of Rs.34,05, 806.00 in order to grant No Objection Certificate ('NOC' in short) to sell the flats developed by the Petitioner, on the premise that the same has been done by using Transfer of Development Rights ('TDR' in short) in a multistoried building by name and style as "La Regalia" constructed on nazul Plot No.94 admeasuring 1114.8 sq.mts. in Mouza Lendra, Ramdaspeth, Nagpur.

4. The Petitioner states that he is the owner of the said plot. He entered into an agreement of development with M/s. Raghav Life Spaces, through its partner, Sharad Mor on 22/7/2015. The Petitioner has also executed power of attorney in favour of Mr. Mor on the same day. The parties decided to develop a multi storied residential building on the said plot in accordance with law. Since the said plot is/ was on nazul lease, the Petitioner applied to the Respondents vide application dtd. 18/1/2016 for grant of NOC for the proposed construction of multi-storied residential building by using Floor Space Index ('FSI' in short) and TDR. The Petitioner on 18/1/2016 had also applied to the Nagpur Municipal Corporation (NMC) for sanction of the building plan. The NMC was pleased to sanction the building plan and issued commencement certificate on 7/5/2016. The Respondents also granted NOC on 25/1/2017 for construction of a multistoried building.

5. The Petitioner states that after completion of construction, the Petitioner wanted to execute deed of conveyance in favour of the flat purchasers. The Petitioner therefore required NOC for transfer/ sale of the flats from the Respondents. Accordingly, the Petitioner applied to the Respondents on 25/6/2020 and 12/11/2020 for grant of NOC for sale of flats.

6. The Petitioner further states that the Respondents vide impugned communication (Annexure 7) raised a demand of Rs.34,05,806.00 as development charges. The Petitioner states that the said demand is without authority of law and has been raised at ipse dixit of Respondent No.2-Collector. The Petitioner, therefore, addressed a representation to the Collector to provide Government Resolution or any other decision on the basis of which the impugned demand has been raised. Despite the representation, the Respondents have neither recalled demand nor supplied the required information or any justification.

7. The Petitioner, however, came across a Government Resolution ('GR' in short) dtd. 13/4/2017 which was amended by GR dtd. 23/2/2018 which mentions about levy of development charges. However, according to the Petitioner, the same are not applicable to his case. Accordingly, the Petitioner by way of another representation expressed that the GR dtd. 23/2/2018 is not applicable to his case and requested to recall the demand notice dtd. 15/1/2021. The Respondent No.2, however, issued the impugned communication (Annexure-12) dtd. 11/11/2021 reiterating the demand for the development charges, with a caution that nonpayment of said charges would result into rejection of Petitioner's application seeking NOC. Hence the present Petition.

8. The Respondents state that as per the Government Gazette notification issued by the Revenue and Forest Department on 4/1/2017, it is provided that any newly amended provisions of Sec. 37A (i) & (ii) in the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code ('Code of 1966' in short), the concerned Collector shall exercise his powers for grant of permission in respect of nazul land regarding FSI/TDR. According to Respondents, considering the aforesaid noti