JUDGMENT :

Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Through present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the demand notice dated 30.5.2003 which was issued to him by Allahabad Development Authority at the time of sanctioning the map submitted by the petitioner.

3. The aforesaid demand notice issued by the Allahabad Development Authority, demanded permit fee, water charge, stacking fee, sub-division charge, development charge, inspection fee and open area penalty.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the aforesaid demand notice on the ground that only those charges/fees can be demanded by the Development Authority which are referable to Section 15(2-A) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1973"). Learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, submits that only those charges/fees can be levied at the time of sanctioning the map by the Development Authority for which the Act, 1973 authorises the Development Authority and the State Government in exercise of power u/s 41 of the Act, 1973 cannot authorise/permit the Development Authority to levy charges/fees which are not mentioned in the Act, 1973. Section 15(2-A) of the Act, 1973 is being quoted as below:-

"15(2-A). The Authority shall be entitled to levy development fees, mutation charges, stacking fees and water fees in such manner and at such rates as may be prescribed:

Provided that the amount of stacking fees levied in respect of an area which is not being developed or has not been developed, by the Authority, shall be transferred to the local authority within whose local limits such area is situated."

5. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mathura Vrindavan Development Authority & Anr. vs. Rajesh Sharma & Ors. 2023 SCC OnLine SC 530 in which the Apex Court held that except the charges mentioned in the Section 15(2-A) of the Act, 1973, namely, development fees/charges, mutation charges, stacking fees and water charges, no other charge can be levied by the Development Authority.

6. We have perused the demand notice and the judgments referred by the counsel for the petitioner and find force in the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the Development Authority has no jurisdiction to demand charges, other than external development fees, stacking fees and water fees. Section 15(2-A) of the Act, 1973 very clearly prescribes the charges which can be levied by the Development Authority like development fees, mutation charges, stacking fees and water fees, therefore, even the State Government u/s 41 of the Act, 1973 cannot issue direction or permission to the Development Authority to levy the charges which are not mentioned in Section 15(2-A) of the Act, 1973. Hon'ble Supreme Court also in the judgement of Mathura Vrindavan Development Authority (Supra) in paragraph Nos. 23, 24 and 25 observed as under: -

"23. Under the circumstances, in exercise of powers under Section 41 of the Act, 1973, the State could not have issued the orders permitting/allowing the Development Authorities to levy the charges/fees other than provided under Section 15(2-A) of the Act, 1973. At this stage, it is required to be noted that the levy of fees/charges provided under Section 15(2-A), all of them have been specifically defined under Section 2 of the Act, 1973. Therefore, the intention of the Act is to levy only those charges/fees provided/mentioned under Section 15(2-A) of the Act, 1973, otherwise the other charges also would have been defined under the Act, 1973. Levy of such other charges can be said to be hit by Article 265 of the Constitution of India. As per Article 265 of the Constitution of India, there shall not be any levy of tax/fees/charges except in accordance with law and/or as provided under the statute. Under the circumstances and in view of the above, the High Court has rightly set a