MATHURA VRINDAVAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ANOTHERversusRAJESH SHARMA AND OTHERS

                         [2023] 4 S.C.R. 899                              899


  MATHURA VRINDAVAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY &                               A
                  ANOTHER
                                  v.
                RAJESH SHARMA AND OTHERS
                   Civil Appeal No. 5645 of 2015)                         B
                           APRIL 28, 2023
          [M. R. SHAH AND C. T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ.]
       U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 ss. 15(2-
A), 41 – Constitution of India – Art. 265 – The dispute before the
                                                                          C
High Court by way of various writ petitions was with respect to
challenge to the various demand notices by way of external/internal
development charges, inspection fee/supervision fee while granting
of sanction layout plan, development charges, sub-division charges,
stacking charges and impact fee etc – Except in one case, namely,
Rekha Rani, in all other cases, the Allahabad High Court as such          D
has upheld the levy of development charges/fees – On appeal, held:
Insofar as the levy of development fees/charges is concerned, the
issue is now not res integra, in view of the direct decision of Supreme
Court in the case of Malti Kaul and after taking into consideration
the entire scheme and the relevant provisions of the Act, 1973, more
                                                                          E
particularly ss. 14, 15(2-A), 41 & 59 of the Act, 1973, Supreme
Court has upheld the levy of development charges/fees – Under the
circumstances, the High Court has rightly upheld the levy of
development fees/charges except in the case of Rekha Rani and the
decision of the High Court in the case of Rekha Rani quashing and
setting aside the levy of development charges/fees thus is                F
unsustainable and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside
and the levy of development charges/fees, which otherwise is
permissible under section 15(2-A) of the Act, 1973 is to be upheld.
      Disposing of the appeals, the Court
      HELD: 1. Insofar as the levy of development fees/charges            G
is concerned, the issue is now not res integra, in view of the
direct decision of this Court in the case of Malti Kaul. After taking
into consideration the entire scheme and the relevant provisions
of the Act, 1973, more particularly Sections 14, 15(2-A), 41 & 59
of the Act, 1973, this Court has upheld the levy of development           H
                                 899
900           SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      [2023] 4 S.C.R.


A     charges/fees. Therefore, the issue with respect to levy of
      development charges/fees is concerned, the same is concluded
      by this Court in the case of Malti Kaul. Under the circumstances,
      as such the High Court has rightly upheld the levy of development
      fees/charges except in the case of Rekha Rani. The decision of
      the High Court in the case of Rekha Rani quashing and setting
B
      aside the levy of development charges/fees thus is unsustainable
      and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside and the levy
      of development charges/fees, which otherwise is permissible
      under section 15(2-A) of the Act, 1973 is to be upheld. [Para
      6][905-F-H; 906-A-B]
C           2. 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
D     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
E     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 aside the various demand notices
F     by way of levy of inspection fee/supervision fee while granting of
      sanction lay out plan, sub-division charges, impact fee etc. [Para
      12][914-D-G]
            3. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above,
      the levy of development charges/fees by the various Development
G     Authorities of the State of U.P. is hereby confirmed. The decision
      of the High Court in the case of Rekha Rani (Civil Appeal No.
      4489/2014) quashing and setting aside the levy of development
      charges/fees is hereby quashed and set aside to that extent. The
      impugned judgments and orders passed by the High Court
      quashing and setting aside the demand notices/levy of other
H
   MATHURA VRINDAVAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY &                             901
       ANOTHER v. RAJESH SHARMA AND OTHERS

charges/fees, namely, inspection fee/supervision fee while               A
granting of sanction layout plan, sub-division charges, impact fee
etc. (other than development charges/fees) are hereby confirmed.
[Para 13][914-G-H; 915-A-B]
      State of U.P. & Others v. Malti Kaul (Smt.) & Another
      (1996) 10 SCC 425 : [1996] 5 Suppl. SCR 9 – relied                 B
      on.
      K.K. Bhalla v. State of M.P. (2006) 3 SCC 581 : [2006]
      1 SCR 342; Poonam Verma v. Delhi Development
      Authority (2007) 13 SCC 154 : [2007] 13 SCR 552 –
      referred to.                                                       C
                       Case Law Reference
[1996] 5 Suppl. SCR 9           relied on                Para 4.1
[2006] 1 SCR 342                referred to              Para 10
[2007] 13 SCR 552               referred to              Para 11         D
      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTIONL Civil Appeal No. 5645
of 2015.
      From the Judgment and Order dated 06.05.2011 of the High Court
of Judicature at Allahabad in CMWP No. 24531 of 2011.
                                                                         E
      With
      Civil Appeal Nos. 1976, 1979, 1984 of 2023, 5647, 5646, 6536 of
2015, 658 of 2016, 4438, 4198, 4489 of 2014, 3636 of 2018, 1977, 1988,
1983 of 2023, 5912-5915, 4492, 5910 of 2014, 2041 of 2023, 6247, 6249,
6250, 6248 of 2014, 3176, 3242, 6537, 6540, 6541, 6538, 6539 of 2015,    F
1982, 1978, 1980-1981 of 2023 and 5918, 5919 of 2014.
       Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, ASG., V. K. Shukla, Ravi Prakash Mehrotra,
S. S. Kulshrestha, S. R. Singh, Rana Mukherjee, Brijender Chahar, Sr.
Advs., Ms. Preetika Dwivedi, Abhisek Mohenty, Pardeep Gupta, Parinav
Gupta, Mrs. Mansi Gupta, Dr. (Mrs.) Vipin Gupta, Abhisth Kumar, Anurag   G
Rawat, Ms. Harshita Raghuwanshi, Ms. Shreya Jain, Shashibhushan P.
Adgaonkar, Ajesh K Chawla, Ms. Saket Gautam, Ms. Shivangi Singh,
Satish Kumar, Sudhir Kulshreshtha, Ms. Sushma Singh, Tanmay Mehta,
Rajeev Mishra, Himanshu Tyagi, Yashva Ahuja, Ms. Jayanti Priya, Ms.
Shashi Kiran, Dr. Satish Chandra, Arjun Saini, Ms. Parul Shukla, Ms.
                                                                         H
902            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2023] 4 S.C.R.


A     Shreya Bhojnagarwala, Abhishek Chaudhary, Abhishek Sharma, Mrs.
      Anchal Sharma, Ms. Chanda Trikha, Vivek Bansall, Vineet Bhagat, Ajay
      Kumar Singh, Ms. Manju Bhagat, Ms. Archna Midha, Mohit Gulati, Mrs.
      Anil Katiyar, Ritesh Agrawal, Tripurari Ray, Balwant Singh Billowria,
      Atul Wadera, Anirudh Ray, Nithyananda Murthy P., Ms. Bhanu Prabha,
      Vivekanand Singh, Ms. Shilpa Singh, Ajit Pandey, Naresh Kumar, Praveen
B
      Chaturvedi, Subhashree Mohapatra, Ms. Jyoti Chaturvedi, Tejaswi Kumar
      Pradhan, Manoranjan Paikaray, Aniruddha Purushotham, Mohan Prasad
      Gupta, A. N. Arora, Jatin Zaveri, Abhinav Agrawal, Ms. Shweta Garg,
      Kishan Chand Jain, E. C. Agrawala, Ajay Yadav, Sushant Kumar Yadav,
      Prateek Yadav, Jaidev Yadav, Prithvi Yadav, Gaurav Lomes, Ankur Yadav,
C     Rajeev Kumar Dubey, Ashiwan Mishra, Ms. Priya Gaur, Kamlendra
      Mishra, T. Mahipal, Shaswat Anand, Prabhat Ranjan Raj, Gunjesh
      Ranjan, Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, Anurag Tomar, Chandra Shekhar,
      Devendra Sharma, Prashant Shekhar, Yogesh Pachaori, Sanjay Kumar
      Tyagi, Ashwani Saini, Ms. Harshita Raghuvanshi, Vinay Kumar Sah, M/
      s. V. Maheshwari & Co., Mrs. Priyanka Swami, Ms. Sangeeta Singh,
D
      Abhisth Kumar, Himanshu Shekhar Tripathi, Ambuj Dixit, T. N. Singh,
      Vikas Kumar Singh, Ms. Rajshree Singh, Dr. Sham Chand, Vikram Singh,
      Kunal Verma, Shantanu Sagar, Sidharth Sarthi, Mrs. Divya Mishra, Anil
      Kumar, Gunjesh Ranjan, Shashi Bhushan, Karan Chahar, Vinay Garg,
      Ms. Pooja Chahar, Ms. Shweta Garg, Advs. for the appearing parties.
E           The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
            M. R. SHAH, J.
            1. As common question of law and facts arise in this group of
      appeals, all these appeals are decided and disposed of together, by this
F     common judgment and order.
            2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned
      judgment(s) and order(s) passed by the High Court of Judicature at
      Allahabad passed in the respective writ petitions, by which the High
      Court has quashed and set aside the various demand notices raised by
G     the respective Development Authorities and the State of UP, the
      Development Authorities and the State of U.P. have preferred the present
      appeals.
             2.1 Some of the appeals have been preferred by the original writ
      petitioners challenging the interim orders passed by the High Court in
      the respective writ petitions refusing to stay the demand notices, however,
H
  MATHURA VRINDAVAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY &                                     903
ANOTHER v. RAJESH SHARMA AND OTHERS [M. R. SHAH, J.]

subject to the outcome of the proceedings pending before this Court             A
which are being disposed of by this common judgment and order and
directing the respective Development Authorities that in case the decision
in the present proceedings is against the Development Authorities/State
of U.P., they shall refund the amount of various fees collected with 6%
interest per annum.
                                                                                B
       2.2 By the impugned judgment(s) and order(s), the High Court
has set aside the various demand notices except the levy of development
fees/charges. However, so far as Civil Appeal No. 4489 of 2014 (State
of U.P. v. Rekha Rani & Others) is concerned, the High Court has even
set aside the levy/demand of development charges/fees also.
                                                                                C
       3. The dispute before the High Court by way of various writ
petitions was with respect to challenge to the various demand notices by
way of external/internal development charges, inspection fee/supervision
fee while granting of sanction layout plan, development charges, sub-
division charges, stacking charges and impact fee etc. Except in one
                                                                                D
case, namely, Rekha Rani (supra), in all other cases, the Allahabad High
Court as such has upheld the levy of development charges/fees. However,
the other levies/demands are concerned, i.e., other than development
fees/charges, more particularly the sub-division charges etc., the High
Court has set aside the said levy and/or demand notices on the ground
that U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 (hereinafter                 E
referred to as the ‘Act, 1973’) does not permit the levy of other charges
other than provided under Section 15(2-A) of the Act, 1973. The High
Court has also observed and held that such levy on the basis of the
orders issued by the State Government, issued in exercise of powers
under Section 41 of the Act, 1973, is illegal and bad in law. The levy of       F
other charges, other than development fees/charges is held to be bad in
law and in violation of Article 265 of the Constitution of India.
       3.1 Quashing and setting aside the levy/demand notices with
respect to external/internal development charges, inspection fee/
supervision fee while granting of sanction layout plan, sub-division charges,   G
stacking charges and impact fee etc. is the subject matter of present
appeals. The State of U.P. has also preferred appeal being Civil Appeal
No. 4489/2014 [Rekha Rani (supra)] challenging the impugned judgment
and order passed by the High Court by which the High Court has set
aside the levy/demand with respect to development charges/fees also.
                                                                                H
904             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                             [2023] 4 S.C.R.


A            4. Shri Rana Mukherjee, learned Senior Advocate appearing on
      behalf of the State of U.P. has vehemently submitted that the State of
      U.P. in exercise of powers under Section 41 of the Act, 1973 issued
      orders permitting the Development Authorities in the State to recover
      the charges /fees with respect to external/internal development charges,
      inspection fee/supervision fee while granting of sanction layout plan,
B
      development charges, sub-division charges, stacking charges and impact
      fee etc. It is submitted that the said orders came to be issued in exercise
      of powers under Section 41 of the Act, 1973, which as such were in the
      larger public interest and for development of the area including the
      development plan/scheme and for development of other areas included
C     within the limits of Development Authorities.
            4.1 It is further submitted by Shri Rana Mukherjee, learned Senior
      Advocate appearing on behalf of the State of U.P. that as such the levy
      towards the development charges/fees has been upheld by this Court in
      the case of State of U.P. & Others v. Malti Kaul (Smt.) & Another,
D     reported in (1996) 10 SCC 425. It is submitted that therefore the High
      Court in the case of Rekha Rani (supra) (Civil Appeal No. 4489/2014)
      ought not to have and could not have set aside the levy of development
      charges/fees which as such came to be affirmed by this Court.
            4.2 Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respective
E     Development Authorities, while adopting the submissions made by Shri
      Rana Mukherjee, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the
      State of U.P., have further submitted that in fact they collected the
      respective charges, other than development charges/fees, under the
      orders issued by the State Government.
F            4.3 Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respective original
      writ petitioners , as such, are not in a position to dispute that so far as the
      levy of development charges/fees is concerned, the same is held to be
      legal in view of the decision of this Court in the case of Malti Kaul
      (supra).
G           4.4 It is submitted that so far as the other charges are concerned,
      the same are rightly held to be illegal and/or not in accordance with law,
      in view of Section 15(2-A) of the Act, 1973. It is submitted that only
      those charges which are enumerated/mentioned in Section 15(2-A) of
      the Act, 1973 can be recovered/levied. It is submitted that as per Article
      265 of the Constitution of India, there cannot be any levy/charges except
H
  MATHURA VRINDAVAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY &                                   905
ANOTHER v. RAJESH SHARMA AND OTHERS [M. R. SHAH, J.]

in accordance with law. Meaning thereby, unless the law permits, there        A
cannot be any levy of tax/charges.
       4.5 Insofar as reliance placed upon Section 41 of the Act, 1973 on
behalf of the State as well as Development Authorities is concerned, it is
submitted that in exercise of powers under Section 41 of the Act, 1973,
there cannot be any levy and/or no charge/fee can be recovered, if            B
otherwise the same is not permissible under the Act. It is submitted that
the powers under Section 41 of the Act, 1973, as such, are supervisory
in nature and the directions can be issued by the State Government upon
the concerned Development Authorities to carry out the functions under
the Act. It is submitted that Section 41 does not permit the State to issue
                                                                              C
orders for levy of charges other than mentioned in Section 15(2-A) of
the Act, 1973.
       4.6 In one of the cases, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the original writ petitioner has vehemently submitted that as such though
the property in question may be within the limits of the Development
                                                                              D
Authorities, however, with respect to the land which is not covered by
the development plan, there cannot be any levy of even development
charges/fees.
       5. We have heard learned counsel for the respective parties at
length.
                                                                              E
       At the outset, it is required to be noted that before the High Court
the dispute was with respect to various demand notices by way of
external/internal development charges, inspection fee/supervision fee
while granting of sanction layout plan, development charges, sub-division
charges, stacking charges and impact fee etc.
                                                                              F
       6. Insofar as the levy of development fees/charges is concerned,
the issue is now not res integra, in view of the direct decision of this
Court in the case of Malti Kaul (supra). After taking into consideration
the entire scheme and the relevant provisions of the Act, 1973, more
particularly Sections 14, 15(2-A), 41 & 59 of the Act, 1973, this Court
has upheld the levy of development charges/fees. Therefore, the issue         G
with respect to levy of development charges/fees is concerned, the same
is concluded by this Court in the case of Malti Kaul (supra). Under the
circumstances, as such the High Court has rightly upheld the levy of
development fees/charges except in the case of Rekha Rani (supra).
The decision of the High Court in the case of Rekha Rani (supra)              H
906            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2023] 4 S.C.R.


A     quashing and setting aside the levy of development charges/fees thus is
      unsustainable and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside and
      the levy of development charges/fees, which otherwise is permissible
      under section 15(2-A) of the Act, 1973 is to be upheld.
             7. Insofar as the submission on behalf of one of the counsel that
B     as the area in one of the cases is not included within the development
      plan, but the same is within the area of Development Authorities and
      therefore there shall not be any levy of development charges/fees is
      concerned, the same has no substance. It is required to be noted that the
      levy of development fee/charges is for the area where development has
      already taken place and/or which is yet to be developed. The said aspect
C
      has already been considered by this Court in the case of Malti Kaul
      (supra). In paragraph 5 of the said decision, it is observed and held as
      under:
            “5. Section 4 contemplates that the State Government may, by
            notification in the Gazette, constitute, for the purpose of the Act,
D
            an authority called “Development Authority” for any development
            area. ‘Development’ has been defined in Section 2(e) with its
            grammatical variations, to mean the carrying out of building,
            engineering, mining or other operations in, on, over or under land,
            or the making of any material change in any building or land, and
E           includes redevelopment. “Development area” has been defined
            in Section 2(f) to mean any area declared to be development area
            under Section 3. It has been empowered, where the Government
            in exercise of the power under Section 3 has declared that any
            area within the State requires to be developed according to the
            plan, to declare such area to be a development area. Section 7
F
            envisages the objects of the authority and gives power to the
            developing authority to acquire, hold, manage or dispose of a land
            and any other property, to carry out building, engineering, mining
            and other operations, to execute works in connection with the
            supply of water and electricity, to dispose of sewage and to provide
G           and maintain other services and amenities and generally to do
            anything necessary or expedient for purposes of such development
            and for purposes incidental thereto. ‘Amenity’ has been so defined
            in Section 2(a) as to include road, water supply, street lighting,
            drainage, sewerage, public works and such other convenience as
            the State Government may, by notification in the Gazette specify
H
  MATHURA VRINDAVAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY &                                     907
ANOTHER v. RAJESH SHARMA AND OTHERS [M. R. SHAH, J.]

      to be an amenity for the purposes of the Act. The expression              A
      “engineering operations” has been defined under Section 2(h) and
      includes the formation or laying out means of access to a road or
      the laying out of means of water supply. “Means of access” has
      been defined under Section 2(i) and includes any means of access,
      whether private or public, for vehicles or for foot passengers and
                                                                                B
      includes a road.”
      8. Insofar as the levy of other charges by way of inspection fee/
supervision fee while granting of sanction layout plan, sub-division charges,
stacking charges and impact fee etc., except levy of development
charges/fees, is concerned, while considering the legality of the levy of
                                                                                C
such charges, the relevant provisions of the Act, 1973 are required to be
considered, which are as under:
      “S. 2. Definitions - In this Act unless the context otherwise
      requires—
      (e)    ‘development’ with its grammatical variations, means the           D
             carrying out of building, engineering, mining or other
             operations in, on, over or under land, or the making of any
             material change in any building or land, and includes re-
             development:
      (f)    ‘Development Area’ means any area declared, development            E
             area under Section 3:
      (g)    ‘the Development Authority’ or ‘the Authority’, in relation
             to any development area, means the Development Authority
             constituted under Section 4 for that area:
      (ggg) ‘development fee’ means the fee levied upon a person or             F
            body under Section 15 for construction of road, drain, sewer
            line, electric supply and water supply lines in the development
            area by the Development Authority):]
      (h)    ‘engineering operation’ includes the formation or laying out
             means of access to a road or the laying out of means of            G
             water supply:
      (hh) ‘Land use conversion charge’ means the charge levied on
           a person or body under section 38-A for the change of land
           use in the Master Plan or Zonal Plan;]
                                                                                H
908      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2023] 4 S.C.R.


A     (ii)   ‘mutation charges’ means the charges, levied under Section
             15 upon the person seeking mutation in his name of a
             property allotted by the Authority to another person:]
      (kk) ‘Stacking fees’ means the fees levied under Section 15 upon
           the person or body who keeps building materials on the
B          land of the Authority or on a public street or public places:]
      (ll)   ‘water fees’ means the fees levied under Section 15 upon
             a person or body for using water supplied by the Authority
             for building operation or construction of buildings.]
             xxx                         xxx                       xxx
C
      S. 14. Development of the land in the developed area - (1) After
      the declaration of any area as development area under Section 3,
      no development of land shall be undertaken or carried out or
      continued in that area by any person or body (including a
      department of Government)-unless permission for such
D
      development has been obtained in writing from the [Vice-
      Chairman) in accordance with the provision of this Act.
      (2) After the coming into operation of any of the plans in any
      development area no development shall be undertaken or carried
      out or continued in that area unless such development is also in
E
      accordance, with such plans.
      (3) Notwithstanding anything contained In Sub-sections (1) and
      (2), the following provisions shall apply in relation to development
      of land by any department of any State Government or the Central
      Government or any local authority—
F
      (a) When any such department or local authority intends to carry
      out any development of land it shall inform the (Vice Chairman)
      in writing of its intention to do so giving full, particulars thereof,
      including any plans and documents, at least 30 days before
      undertaking such development;
G
      (b) In the case of a department of any State Government or the
      Central Government, if the (Vice-Chairman) has no objections, it
      should inform such department of the same within three weeks
      from the date of receipt by it under Clause (a) of the department’s
      intention, and if the Vice-Chairman does ‘not make any objection
H
  MATHURA VRINDAVAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY &                               909
ANOTHER v. RAJESH SHARMA AND OTHERS [M. R. SHAH, J.]

    within the said period, the department shall be free to carry out     A
    the proposed development;
    (c) Where the (Vice-Chairman) raises any objection to the
    proposed development on the ground that the development is not
    conformity with any Master Plan or Zonal Development Plan
    prepared or intended to be prepared by it, or on any other ground,    B
    such department or the local authority, as the case be, shall—
    (i) either make necessary modifications in the proposal development
    to meet the objections raised by the [Vice-Chairman] or
    (ii) submit the proposals for development together with the
    objections raised by the [Vice-Chairman] to the State Government      C
    for decision under Clause (d)
    (d) The State Government, on receipt of proposals for development
    together with the objections of the (Vice-Chairman) may either
    approve the proposals with or without modifications or direct the
    department or the local authority, as the case may be, to make        D
    such modification as proposed by the Government and the decision
    of the State Government shall be final:
    the development of any land begun by any such department or
    subject to the provisions of Section 59 by any such local authority
    before the declaration referred to in Sub-section (1) may be          E
    completed by that department or local authority with compliance
    with the requirement of Sub-sections (1) and (2).
    S. 15. Application for permission—(1) Every person or body (other
    than any department of Government or any local authority) desiring
    to obtain the permission referred to in Section 14 shall make an      F
    application in writing to the [Vice-Chairman] in such form and
    containing such particulars in respect of the development to which
    the Application relates as may be prescribed by [bye-laws].
    (2) Every application under Sub-section (1) shall be accompanied
    by such fee as may be prescribed by rules.                            G
    [(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       H
910      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                             [2023] 4 S.C.R.


A     the Authority, shall be transferred to the local authority within
      whose local limits such area is situated.]
             xxx                          xxx                        xxx
      S. 41. Control by State Government - (1) The [Authority, the
      Chairman or the Vice-Chairman] shall carry out such directions
B
      as may be issued to it from time to time by the State Government
      for the efficient administration of this Act.
      (2) If in, or in connection with, the exercise of its powers and
      discharge of its functions by the [Authority, the Chairman or the
C     Vice-Chairman) under this Act any dispute arises between the
      authority, the Chairman or the Vice-Chairman) and the State
      Government the decision of the State Government on such dispute
      shall be final.
      (3) The State Government may, at any time, either on its own
D     motion or on application made to it in this behalf, call for the records
      of any case disposed of or order passed by the [Authority or the
      Chairman) for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the legality or
      propriety of any order passed or direction issued and may pass
      such order or issue such direction in relation thereto as it may
      think fit:
E
      Provided that the State Government shall not pass an order
      prejudicial to any person without affording such person a reasonable
      opportunity of being heard.
      [(4) Every order of the State Government made in exercise of the
F     powers conferred by this Act shall be final and shall not be called
      in question in any court.]
             xxx                          xxx                        xxx
      S. 59. Repeal etc. and Savings - (1)(a) The operation of Clause
      (c) of Section 5, Sections 54, 55 and 56, Clause (xxxiii) of Section
G     114, Sub-section (3) of Section 117, Clause (c) of Sub-section (1)
      of Section 119, Section 191, Sections 316, 317, 318, 319, 320, 321,
      322, 323, 324, 325, 326, 327, 328, 329 and 333, Clauses (a) and (b)
      of Sub-section (1) of Section 334, Sections 335, 336, Chapter XIV
      of the Uttar Pradesh [U.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1959]
H     Sections 178, 179, 180, 180-A, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 203,
  MATHURA VRINDAVAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY &                                    911
ANOTHER v. RAJESH SHARMA AND OTHERS [M. R. SHAH, J.]

    204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210 and 222 of the [U.P. Municipalities      A
    Act, 1916] (or the said sections as extended under Section 338
    thereof or under Section 38 of the [United Provinces Town Areas
    Act, 1914], or as the, case may be, of Sections 162 to 171 of
    the [U.P. Kshetra Panchayat Zila Panchayat Adhiniyam, 1961]
    and of the Uttar Pradesh (Regulation of Building Operations) Act,
                                                                               B
    1958 and the Uttar Pradesh Avas-Evam Vikas Parishad
    Adhinlyam, 1965, [except in relation to those housing or
    Improvement schemes which have either been notified under
    Section 32 of Uttar Pradesh Avas Evam Vikas Parishad
    Adhiniyam, 1965 before the declaration of the area comprised
    therein as development area or which having been notified under            C
    Section 28 of the said Adhiniyam before the said declarations are
    bye-thereafter approved by the State Government for continuance
    under the said Adhiniyam or which are initiated after such
    declaration with the approval of the State Government, hereinafter
    in this section referred to as Special Avas Parishad Schemes]
                                                                               D
    shall in respect of a development area remain suspended and Sub-
    section (3) of Section 139 of the Uttar Pradesh [Municipal
    Corporation Act, 1959) shall have effect as if the requirement as
    to constitution of a Development Fund were suspended with effect
    from the date of constitution of the Authority for that area and
    until the dissolution of such Authority and the provisions of [Sections    E
    6 and 24 of the United Provinces General Clauses Act, 1904)
    shall apply, in relation to such suspension as if the suspension
    amounted to repeal of the said enactment by this Act, and in
    particular, all proceedings relating to acquisition of land and interest
    in land for Improvement schemes under the said enactment
                                                                               F
    pending immediately before such suspension before any court,
    tribunal or authority may be continued and concluded in accordance
    with the provisions of the said enactment (which shall mutatis
    mutandis apply) as if those provisions were not suspended and
    the powers, for doing anything which could but for such suspension
    of the Uttar Pradesh (Regulation of Building not Operations) Act,          G
    1958, be done by the Prescribed Authority and controlling authority
    and which can, after such suspension be done by virtue of the
    application of Section 6 of the Uttar Pradesh General Clause Act,
    1904, shall vest in the Vice-Chairman and the Chairman
    respectively).
                                                                               H
912            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2023] 4 S.C.R.


A               (b) The operation of the provisions suspended by virtue of
                Clause (a) shall revive upon the dissolution of the Authority
                under Section 58, the provisions of [Sections 6 and 24 of the
                United Provinces General Clauses Act, 1904] shall apply in
                relation to the cesser of application of the corresponding
                provisions of this Act as if such cesser amounted to a repeal of
B
                these provisions of this Act by an Uttar Pradesh Act.
                (c) Without prejudice to the generality of the provisions of
                Clauses (a) and (b), and bye-laws, directions or regulations
                under the [U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916] or the Uttar Pradesh
C               (Regulation of Building Operations) Act, 1958 or the [U.P.
                Municipal Corporation Act, 1959) as the case may be, and in
                force on the date immediately before the date of
                commencement of this Act, shall, insofar as they are not
                inconsistent with the provisions of this Act, continue in force,
                until altered, repealed or amended by any competent authority
D               under this Act).
            (6) Notwithstanding the provisions of Sub-sections (1) and (2)
            (a) anything done or any action taken (including any notification
            issued or order or scheme made or permission granted) under
E           any of the enactments referred to in Sub-sections (1) and shall, so
            far as it is not inconsistent with the provisions of the Act continue
            in force and be deemed to have been done or take under the
            provisions of this Act unless and until it is superseded by anything
            done or any action taken under the provisions this Act;
F           Therefore, as per Section 15(2-A) of the Act, 1973, the
      Development Authority can levy only those charges, namely, development
      fees, mutation charges, stacking fees and water fees. The Act, 1973
      does not permit levy of other charges other than provided under Section
      15(2-A) of the Act, 1973.
G            9. Insofar as the reliance placed upon Section 41 of the Act, 1973
      by the State as well as the Development Authorities is concerned, at the
      outset, it is required to be noted that the power exercisable under Section
      41 by the State, as such, are supervisory in nature and under the said
      provision, the State Government can issue various directions to the
      Development Authorities for implementation of the provisions of the said
H
  MATHURA VRINDAVAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY &                                   913
ANOTHER v. RAJESH SHARMA AND OTHERS [M. R. SHAH, J.]

Act. In para 9 in the case of Malti Kaul (supra), it is observed and held     A
as under:
      “9. Section 41 envisages control by the State Government in
      implementation of the provisions of the Act. Under sub-section
      (1) thereof, the authority, the Chairman or the Vice-Chairman
      shall carry out such directions as may be issued to it/him from         B
      time to time by the State Government for the efficient
      administration of this Act. Section 56 gives power to make
      regulations under the Act. Sub-section (1) thereof provides that
      any authority may, with the previous approval of the State
      Government, make regulations, not inconsistent with this Act and        C
      the rules made thereunder, for the administration of the affairs of
      the authority. Therefore, the general power is available under
      Section 56 for the authority to make regulations for the
      administration of the affairs of the authority. In particular sub-
      section (2) thereof provides that despite the generality of the power
      given in sub-section (1) specific power has been given by way of        D
      regulations as enumerated thereunder. Clause (i) which is a
      residuary clause provides for any other matter which has to be or
      may be prescribed by the regulations.”
      10. An identical question came to be considered by this Court in
the case of K.K. Bhalla v. State of M.P., reported in (2006) 3 SCC            E
581. While dealing with the powers of the State Government under the
Madhya Pradesh Act, which is pari materia to Section 41 of the Act,
1973, in paragraph 62, it is observed and held as under:
      “62. Furthermore, in terms of Section 73 of the 1973 Act, the
                                                                              F
      power of the State Government to issue direction to the officers
      appointed under Section 3 and the authorities constituted under
      the Act is confined only to matters of policy and not any other.
      Such matters of policy yet again must be in relation to discharge
      of duties by the officers of the authority and not in derogation
      thereof.”                                                               G
      11. In the case of Poonam Verma v. Delhi Development
Authority, (2007) 13 SCC 154, while dealing with the pari materia
provision under the Delhi Development Authority Act (Section 41 of the
DDA Act), this Court has observed and held in para 13 as under:
                                                                              H
914            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2023] 4 S.C.R.


A           “13. Having failed to establish any legal right in themselves as
            also purported deficiency in services on the part of the respondent
            before competent legal forums, they took recourse to remedies
            on administrative side which stricto sensu were not available. It
            has not been shown as to on what premise the Central Government
            can interfere with the day-to-day affairs of the respondent. Section
B
            41 of the Act, only envisages that the respondent would carry out
            such directions that may be issued by the Central Government
            from time to time for the efficient administration of the Act. The
            same does not take within its fold an order which can be passed
            by the Central Government in the matter of allotment of flats by
C           the Authority. Section 41 speaks about policy decision. Any
            direction issued must have a nexus with the efficient administration
            of the Act. It has nothing to do with carrying out of the plans of
            the authority in respect of a particular scheme.”
              12. Under the circumstances, in exercise of powers under Section
D     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
E     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
F     with law and/or as provided under the statute. Under the circumstances
      and in view of the above, the High Court has rightly set aside the various
      demand notices by way of levy of inspection fee/supervision fee while
      granting of sanction lay out plan, sub-division charges, impact fee etc.
             13. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the
G     levy of development charges/fees by the various Development
      Authorities of the State of U.P. is hereby confirmed. The decision of the
      High Court in the case of Rekha Rani (supra) (Civil Appeal No. 4489/
      2014) quashing and setting aside the levy of development charges/fees
      is hereby quashed and set aside to that extent. The impugned judgments
      and orders passed by the High Court quashing and setting aside the
H
  MATHURA VRINDAVAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY &                                           915
ANOTHER v. RAJESH SHARMA AND OTHERS [M. R. SHAH, J.]

demand notices/levy of other charges/fees, namely, inspection fee/                    A
supervision fee while granting of sanction layout plan, sub-division charges,
impact fee etc. (other than development charges/fees) are hereby
confirmed.
        14. It is observed and directed that any amount already paid by
the respective original writ petitioners other than the development charges/          B
fees and the charges provided under Section 15(2-A), now be refunded
to the respective original writ petitioners with 6% interest per annum,
within a period of twelve months from today, of course after adjusting
development charges/fees. It is made clear that we have not expressed
anything on the levy of betterment charges, which, as such, is otherwise
permissible under section 35 of the Act, 1973. It is also made clear that             C
the order of refund shall be applicable only with respect to those original
writ petitioners/persons who have challenged the demand notices and
who were before the High Court. It is also observed and it is made clear
that if any individual/original writ petitioner has any other grievances, it
will be open for them to approach the High Court by way of independent                D
proceedings.
       15. The present appeals stand disposed of in terms of the above.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to
costs.
                                                                                      E
Ankit Gyan                                                     Appeals disposed of.
(Assisted by : Abhishek Agnihotri and Mahendra Yadav, LCRAs)




                                                                                      F




                                                                                      G




                                                                                      H