( 1 ) HEARD learned counsel for the parties. ( 2 ) IN this appeal, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that in the second appeal the High Court has framed the following substantial question of law;"whether it being an admitted position that Raipur Development plan was in force in the area in question, the decree passed by the lower appellate court in favour of the plaintiff-respondents permitting them to construct on the entire land is contrary to the provisions of Sections 25 and 26 of the M. P. Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973. " ( 3 ) INSTEAD of deciding the said question, the High Court has decided the second appeal on facts. It is, therefore, contended that there is total non-application of mind by the High Court to the substantial question of law which was framed at the time of admission of second appeal. ( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the parties have further pointed out that by an interim order dated 28-1-1991 this Court had permitted the respondent to construct the building on the disputed land subject to his depositing the development charges with Raipur Development Authority and with a condition to comply with the municipal bye-laws relating to the construction of the building. The said order reads as under:"the respondents are permitted to complete the construction on depositing the development charges with Raipur Development Authority provided the respondents will comply with the municipal bye-laws relating to the construction of the building. The amount so deposited will be subject to the final decision in the appeal. . . . " ( 5 ) LEARNED counsel for the respondent has pointed out that in pursuance of the aforesaid order, the respondent has already constructed a building and he has deposited the amount of approximately Rs 8800 as development charges. ( 6 ) IN view of the fact that the building is constructed on the basis of interim order passed by this Court after depositing development charges and the fact that the High Court has not decided substantial question of law framed by it, in our view, it is not necessary to decide the question of law involved in this appeal. Hence, it is ordered that the amount deposited by the respondent shall be treated as development charges leviable under the Act and the Rules. Hence, it is ordered that the amount deposited by the respondent shall be treated as development charges leviable under the Act and the Rules. However, we make it clear that the observations made by the high Court in paras 7 and 8 prima facie do not appear to be correct enunciation of law, but at present in this appeal, it is not required to be decided. ( 7 ) THE appeal stands disposed of accordingly.