IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel, Piyush Agrawal, JJ.
Rajendra Prasad Arora And Others – Petitioners
Versus
State Of U.P. And Others – Respondents
WRIT - C No. - 4633 of 2019
Decided On : 16-11-2019
WRIT - QUASHING OF DEMAND NOTICE - COMPOUNDING FEE - IMPACT FEE - ZONAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN - MIXED AREA - DIRECTIONS TO PREPARE ZONAL DEVELOPMENT PLANS - DIRECTIONS TO NOT ALLOW COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS WITHOUT ASSESSMENT OF IMPACT - DIRECTIONS TO ENSURE THAT ALL THE COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS, WHICH HAVE BEEN SANCTIONED AND MADE IN THE RESIDENTIAL AREAS, SHALL STRICTLY COMPLY WITH THE SANCTIONED BUILDING PLAN, WHEREIN THE PARKING AREA HAS BEEN SHOWN IN THEIR BUILDING PLAN - DIRECTIONS TO NOT ALLOW FREEHOLD APPLICATIONS IN RESPECT OF PARKS AND OPEN SPACES SHOWN IN EARLIER ZONAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN OF MASTER PLAN-2001 - DIRECTIONS TO CANCEL THE FREEHOLD ORDER OF PARKS AFTER FURNISHING OPPORTUNITY TO AFFECTED PERSONS AND RESTORE THE PARKS IN THE LIGHT OF THE LAW LAID DOWN BY THE SUPREME COURT IN M.I. BUILDERS (SUPRA) WITHIN SIX MONTHS.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners have instituted this writ proceedings for quashing of the demand notice dated 20th September, 2018 issued by the Allahabad Development Authority, Allahabad (now Prayagraj Development Authority, Prayagraj) [PDA], the second respondent, whereby the petitioners have been called upon to deposit a sum of Rs.50,62,774.00 for compounding of their construction, which is commercial, and other charges.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the PDA had failed to prepare the zonal development plans as provided under Section 9 of the Act. The Court also found that the decision of the PDA to allow mixed area in the residential areas was unreasonable and unjustified. It shall have a serious environmental impact on the residents of the residential areas especially on the health of the senior citizens and the children, who will be affected by the pollution. Hence, in the opinion of the Court, having regard to the harsh ground level reality in the city of Prayagraj no further commercial activities should be allowed in the residential areas.
Issues: 1. Whether the PDA had failed to prepare the zonal development plans as provided under Section 9 of the Act? 2. Whether the decision of the PDA to allow mixed area in the residential areas was unreasonable and unjustified?
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the PDA had failed to prepare the zonal development plans as provided under Section 9 of the Act. The Court also held that the decision of the PDA to allow mixed area in the residential areas was unreasonable and unjustified. It shall have a serious environmental impact on the residents of the residential areas especially on the health of the senior citizens and the children, who will be affected by the pollution. Hence, in the opinion of the Court, having regard to the harsh ground level reality in the city of Prayagraj no further commercial activities should be allowed in the residential areas.
Final Decision: The Court quashed the demand notice dated 20th September, 2018 issued by the PDA. The Court also directed the PDA to prepare the zonal development plans strictly in accordance with the provisions of Sections 8 and 9 of the Act as well as the directions issued by the Division Bench of this Court in Smt. Radha Rani Singh (supra). The Court further directed that till the zonal development plans are prepared in terms of the master plan, no further commercial activity shall be allowed in the residential areas without assessment of the impact as directed in the public interest litigation in Ashok Kumar (supra) and in the light of observations made in this judgment.
JUDGMENT :
Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel, J.
1. The petitioners have instituted this writ proceedings for quashing of the demand notice dated 20th September, 2018 issued by the Allahabad Development Authority, Allahabad (now Prayagraj Development Authority, Prayagraj) [PDA], the second respondent, whereby the petitioners have been called upon to deposit a sum of Rs.50,62,774.00 for compounding of their construction, which is commercial, and other charges.
2. The relevant facts may briefly be stated: the petitioners are owners of a part, an area of 285.32 square meter, of Nazul Free hold Site No. 'Z', Civil Station, Allahabad, which is a part portion of Premises Nos. 14 and 18, New Lal Bahadur Shastri Marg, Allahabad. The said plot was purchased by the petitioners vide registered sale-deed dated 11th December, 2009. The petitioners made an application to the second respondent for sanctioning of map of the residential accommodation, which was sanctioned. Later, the petitioners submitted a revised map for change of use of the building from residential to commercial. Upon the said application, the second respondent has issued a fresh notice dated 20th September, 2018, whereby apart from other fees the compounding fee for a sum of Rs.21,61,086.00 and the impact fee to a tune of Rs.33,04,148.00 have been demanded.
3. The petitioners have averred in the writ petition that the demand notice has been issued on the ground that it relates to commercial use of the building and not for sanctioning the building map afresh. It is stated that demand of impact fee of Rs.33,04,148.00 is totally illegal as it is not provided anywhere in the Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 [Act]. Similarly, the compounding fee is also arbitrary and illegal.
4. It is stated that for the area where the petitioners' plot is situated no zonal development plan has been prepared by the development authority. It is further stated that Section 9 of the Act contemplates preparation of zonal development plan in terms of the master plan and the compounding contrary to the zonal development plan cannot be permitted. Therefore, unless zonal development plan is sanctioned, compounding fee cannot be charged. The development authority has not framed any rule prescribing the rate of imposition of the compounding fee.
5. It is also stated that the demand of the permit fee, inspection fee and Malwa fee is illegal and against the judgment of this Court in Smt. Malti Kaul and another v. Allahabad Development Authority and another, AIR 1995 All 397. It is averred that the development fee and betterment fee have been highly excessive, arbitrary and contrary to the law laid down by the judgment in the cases of Virendra Kumar Tyagi v. Ghaziabad Development Authority, Writ Petition No. 46706 of 1999, decided on 27.10.2005, Smt. Rekha Rani v. State of U.P. and others, 2014 (1) ADJ 325 (DB) : (2014) 4 UPLBEC 2789, Smt. Nisha Kumari v. State of U.P. and others, 2014 (6) ADJ 20 (DB) : (2014) 3 UPLBEC 2139 : 2015 (1) AWC 339, and Smt. Malti Kaul (supra).
6. It is averred in the writ petition that there is a nexus between the local builders and the officials of the development authority in demanding the arbitrary and illegal demand against the provisions of the Act. The petitioners have also demanded a free and fair judicial enquiry in this matter, otherwise situation leads to a disastrous development and the purpose and object of the Act would be defeated.
7. The petitioners have also prayed that this writ petition be converted into the public interest litigation as the authorities are arbitrarily converting the residential areas, which have been earmarked as such in the master plan, into the commercial area. It is stated in a supplementary affidavit that there are only nine bungalows remained on the Elgin Road, which are used purely as residential, and rest of the buildings
Smt. Malti Kaul and another v. Allahabad Development Authority and another
Friends Colony Development Committee v. State of Orissa
Pratibha Coop. Housing Society Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra
K. Ramadas Shenoy v. Town Municipal Council, Udipi
Virender Gaur v. State of Haryana
Pleasant Stay Hotel v. Palani Hills Conservation Council
Bombay Dyeing & Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. Bombay Environmental Action Group and others
Cantonment Board, Jabalpur v. S.N. Awasthi
M.I. Builders (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Radhey Shyam Sahu
Chairman, Indore Vikas Pradhikaran vs. Pure Industrial Coke & Chemicals Limited and others
Priyanka Estates International (P) Ltd. v. State of Assam
Shanti Sports Club v. Union of India
R.K. Mittal and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others
Dipak Kumar Mukherjee v. Kolkata Municipal Corporation and others
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.