Point of law: if a litigant does not come to the Court with clean hands, he is not entitled to be heard and indeed, such a person is not entitled to any relief from any judicial forum

JUDGMENT :

Ved Prakash Vaish, J.

1. By way of the present petition, the petitioner seeks quashing of the impugned order of recovery dated 19th July, 2008 passed by respondent No.2, whereby the respondent No.2 directed the petitioner to deposit external development charges amounting to Rs.2,61,84,771.00/-till 31st July, 2008 at the rate of Rs.400/-per square meter. The petitioner also seeks quashing of the order dated 30th September, 2007 and Resolution dated 3rd June, 2006; and for a direction to the respondents to approve the project Talpat Manchitra of Greenwood City ignoring the Resolution dated 3rd June, 2006.

2. Briefly, the facts as stated in the petition are that the petitioner preferred an application under Section 14 of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act') regarding approval of their project, namely, Talpat Manchitra of Greenwood City situated at By-pass Chauraha, Bagpat Road, Meerut. The respondent No.2 informed the petitioner that Talpat Manchitra/Maps relating to the plots of Greenwood City had been approved with certain conditions as mentioned in their letter dated 26th September, 2007.

3. It is stated that before 1997, there was no provision under the said Act for the imposition of any development fee and only provision for collection and levy cess under the said Act was Section 33, under which the Authority has to provide an amenity and carry out development, and thereafter to recover the cost of the same from the owner. It is also stated that Section 35 of the said Act provides that if under the opinion of the Authority as a consequence to any development scheme having been executed by the Authority in any development area, the value of any property in that area, which has been benefited by the development has increased or will increase, the Authority was entitled to levy upon the owner of the property a betterment charge in respect of increase of the value of the property resulting from the execution of the development.

4. It is further stated that in the year 1997 vide U.P. Act No.3 of 1997, the said Act, was amended by inserting new Section as 2 (ggg), 15 (2A) and proviso 3 to Section 15 (3). Section 2 (ggg) defines the term 'Development fee'. While referring to Section 15 (2A) of the said Act which has been inserted by U.P. Act No.3 of 1997, as Section 3, providing that the Authority shall be entitled to levy development fees, mutation charges, staking fees, and water fees in such manner and at such rates as may be prescribed, it is stated that in the absence of any prescribed Rules, Regulations or bye laws the Authority cannot impose any development fees. Since no Rules, Regulations or bye laws have been framed by the State Government or the Meerut Development Authority, Meerut (hereinafter referred to as 'MDA') till date, therefore, the levy of development fees is illegal.

5. It is further stated that the State Government exercises the power of supervision and control over the Authority under the provisions of Section 41 of the said Act, 1973. Therefore, the power to prescribe development fees can only be exercised by the State Government through its rule making power and not by the Development Authority by its Regulation of bye laws making power and if the above interpretation is not agreed to them it will result in a serious abuse and misuse of powers and perpetuation of fraud on statute.

6. Relying on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of 'Virendra Kumar Tyagi vs. GDA', reported in 2006 (62) A.L.R. 106, wherein while interpreting the provisions of Section 15 (2A), Section 41, Section 57 of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act read with Section 4 (33a) of the U.P. General Clauses Act, 1904, this Court has come to the conclusion that the word 'Prescribed' means prescribed by the rules under the Act and if no such rules have been framed no charge under Section 15(2A) can be levied, learned counsel for the