By the Court.—The above mentioned writ petitions have been filed challenging the orders of the various Development Authorities constituted under Section 4 of the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act, 1973”) demanding (a) External development fee (b) Internal development fee (c )Sub-division charges (d) park fee (e) compounding fee in respect of sub-division charges, (f) inspection/supervision charges, (g) labour cess, (h) bank guarantee for the value of the cost of the land and the constructions which are required to be raised by a developer of more than 3000 sq. meters of land and above, under the Government Order dated 26.9.2011 (k) bank guarantee for rain water harvesting system to be installed in the buildings and lastly (l) Impact fee, which is being demanded by the Gorakhpur Development Authority only.

2. We have heard Sri H.N. Singh, Senior Advocate, Sri Anoop Trivedi, Sri Rajeev Kumar Saini, Sri R.K. Saini, Sri R.K. Sharma, Sri K.D. Tripathi, Sri Pankaj Kumar Shukla, Sri Neeraj Kumar Srivastava, Sri Arvind Srivastava, Sri Bheem Singh, Sri Sauraubh Tiwari, Sri Sushil Singh, Sri Vinay Khare, Sri Satish Chaturvedi, Sri Ajit Ray, Sri Jamal Khan and Sri Promod Kumar Srivastava advocates on behalf of petitioners, we have also heard Sri Ramesh Upadhay Chief Standing Counsel on behalf of the State, and Sri Ashwani Mishra, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri A.B. Paul Advocate on behalf of Allahabad Development Authority, Sri H.N. Singh Advocate on behalf of Aligarh Development Authority, Sri B.D. Pandey on Advocate behalf of Gorakhpur Development Authority, Sri Dhamendra Shukla Advocate on behalf of Bareilly Development Authority, Sri Rajesh Kumar Pandey Advocate on behalf of Muzaffar Nagar Development Authority, Sri J.N. Maurya Advocate on behalf of Agra Development Authority and Sri Prem Prakash Yadav Advocate on behalf of Bulandshahar Development Authority.

3. These writ petitions raise common question of facts and law with regard to the competence of the Development Authorities constituted under Act 1973 to levy and demand the aforesaid fees before sanctioning the building plan as per the application submitted under Section 14 of the 1973.

4. The petitioners have been clubbed together and are being decided under this common judgment.

5. It may be recorded that the demand under the following heads: i.e. (a) permit fees (b) malwa fee (c) water fees (d) Triveni Mahotsav fee, has not been challenged before us. The petitioners have no objection to the payment thereof.

6. The petitioners question the levy of external development fee, internal development fee, referable to Section 15(2-A) of Act, 1973.

7. The other fees, which are questioned in the present writ petitions, namely, the Sub-Division charges, the compounding fees in respect of the sub-division, supervision fee and inspection fees, are not covered by Section 15(2-A) of the Act, 1973.

8. In addition to the above, there is a challenge to the demand of bank guarantee for the value of the land and the constructions required to be raised qua the houses for the economically weaker Section and lower income group persons as also to the demand of bank guarantee for the rain water harvesting system which is to be provided in terms of and under the Government Order issued on the subject, in new buildings to be constructed.

9. When the petitioners before this Court had filed plans for grant of sanction under Section 14 of the Act, 1973, demand has been made by respondent-Development Authorities to deposit the fees under various heads including those detailed herein above before grant of such sanction.

10. At the very outset it may be recorded that the Apex Court in the case of State of U.P. and others v. Malti Kaul (Smt.) and another, (1996) 10 SCC 425, had upheld the power to demand the development fee by the Development Authorities having regard to language of Sections 33, 41 read with Section 14 and Section 56 (2) of Act, 1973