JUDGMENT In this petition, filed under Arts. 226/227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has prayed for the composite relief that Respondents be restrained from collecting external development charges from the petitioner and taking possession of 15% of the land for being allotted to Respondent No.5. The questions which have been projected in this petition have already been answered by judgment of this Court passed in W.P. No. 474 of 1989 (M/s. Gautam & Co. v. State of M.P. & others), decided on 17.3.1997. This judgment clearly deals with the powers of the respondents to impose external development charges while developing a colony. Para-l 2 of the said judgment, relevant for the purpose of this petition, is extracted hereinbelow: "I have thus no manner of doubt that Government's direction for imposition of external development charges contained in the letter dated 6.7.78 is wholly arbitrary and without any authority of law, thus void". Thus, with regard to imposition of external development charges, the same has been held to be arbitrary and without authority of law, thus quashed. It is not in dispute that against this judgment of learned Single Judge of this Court, Respondents have preferred LP A, which is pending disposal on merit and interim order has also been passed. Shri Piyush Mathur, appearing for Respondent No.7 has placed reliance on a judgment of the Supreme Court reported in 1996( I 0) SCC 425 (State of M. P. v. Malti Kaur) to contend that the Authority has the power to impose such type of conditions even if the same is not found in the Statute specifically. However, this judgment of the Supreme Court shall have no application to the facts of the present case, more so, when the question already stands decided and concluded by order of the learned Single Judge. As regards delivery of possession with regard to 15% of the land for allotment to weaker sections of the society is concerned, the same also stands concluded by a judgment of the Single Judge of this Court reported in 1998 (Vol. II) MPLJ 370 (Gulmohar Griha Nirman Samiti v. State of M.P.). In the said judgment it has been held by the Single Judge that the petitioner cannot be deprived of the land to the extent of 15%, without Authority of law. II) MPLJ 370 (Gulmohar Griha Nirman Samiti v. State of M.P.). In the said judgment it has been held by the Single Judge that the petitioner cannot be deprived of the land to the extent of 15%, without Authority of law. I have been given to understand that even this judgment is subject matter of challenge in LP A No. 378 of 1998 before the Division Bench, in which an interim order of stay has been passed. Pendency of LP A before the Division Bench, unless, final order is passed, should not detain this Court from passing order in similar matters. Thus, in view of the fact that the questions involved in this petition stand concluded by the two aforesaid judgments mentioned above, the petition is allowed. The respondent's action in imposing external development charges is hereby quashed. Similarly action of respondent No.2 in taking possession of 15% of the land from the petitioner in the' colony developed by him stands quashed. As a necessary consequence, the petitioner would be entitled to retain 15% of land to itself. There shall be no oder as to costs. Security cost, if any, may be refunded back to the petitioner after its due verification.