JUDGMENT Hon’ble Amitava Lala, ACJ.—The petitioner has filed this writ petition with the following prayers to issue : “(i) a writ, order or direction, including a writ in the nature of certiorari, quashing the impugned order dated 8.9.1998 passed by the respondent No. 1 (Annexure -4) and the order dated 23.9.1998 passed by the respondent No. 1 (Annexure-7); (ii) a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus, restraining the respondents from demanding from the petitioner an amount of Rs. 4,71,995/- as development charge and the amount of Rs. 2,35,997.50 as interest on the said amount, in any manner, whatsoever; (iii) any other writ, order or direction as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case; and (iv) award costs of the petition to the petitioner.” 2. The fact remains that the petitioner made an application in the prescribed proforma to the respondent Authority for sanction of a building plan for proposed nursing home at Mathura which the petitioner aspired to establish, being a medical doctor of eminence in his field. The petitioner, for the proposed nursing home, for which he applied on 15th October, 1994 under the scheme name and style of Maheshwari Hospital, held a site located at Delhi Byepass Road at village Jaisindhpura Dangar, Mathura and the land at the site consisted of agricultural land originally belonging to the petitioner. Although the area fell within the development area of the respondent authority, no development of any kind as per plan etc. has been undertaken in the area which lies outside the city limits. The petitioner’s application for sanction of building plan was registered as application No. 172-N under Section 15(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) and a demand was raised against the petitioner for levy of betterment charge to the tune of Rs. 1,36,609/- plus stacking charge to the tune of Rs. 16,916/-, thus totalling to an amount of Rs. 1,53,525/-. In response to the aforesaid demand of betterment charges plus stacking charges as conditions precedent to sanction of petitioner’s building plan, the petitioner deposited an amount of Rs. 1,53,525/- with the respondent-Development Authority. 1,36,609/- plus stacking charge to the tune of Rs. 16,916/-, thus totalling to an amount of Rs. 1,53,525/-. In response to the aforesaid demand of betterment charges plus stacking charges as conditions precedent to sanction of petitioner’s building plan, the petitioner deposited an amount of Rs. 1,53,525/- with the respondent-Development Authority. After deposit of the necessary betterment charges plus stacking charges as demanded, the respondent authority vide its memo dated 10th May, 1995 granted sanction to the petitioner’s building plan and a memo to that effect was issued by the secretary of the respondent Development Authority approving the building plan submitted by the petitioner. After obtaining the sanction from the respondent Authority, the petitioner proceeded to construct the proposed nursing home at the proposed site strictly in accordance with the building plan sanctioned by the Development Authority and the construction was completed in the month of April, 1997. Thereafter the hospital was inaugurated on 6th September, 1997. It has been specifically stated that the hospital in question is situated on the petitioner’s ancestral agricultural land, which is now banjar land and that in the dire vicinity of the hospital, no development work or provisions of any facilities for improvement of the surrounding areas has been carried out by the respondent Development Authority in any manner, whatsoever. However, the petitioner received a memo dated 8th September, 1998, exactly one year after the inauguration, in which it was mentioned that the respondent Authority has found upon scrutiny of the said application that the petitioner had not paid betterment charge to the tune of Rs. 4,71,995/- and that on the said unpaid amount, he was further held liable to pay an interest of Rs. 2,35,997.50, thus, totalling to an amount of Rs. 7,07,992.50. 3. The petitioner has further stated that the impugned memo dated 8th September, 1998 has been issued by the Development Authority unilaterally without affording any opportunity of hearing under show cause against the proposed levy or assessment. 4. Against this background, the petitioner filed various representations inclusive of the representation dated 23rd September, 1998 and 26th September,1998 addressed to the Vice-Chairman, Mathura/Vrindavan Development Authority raising various objections about the levy. 4. Against this background, the petitioner filed various representations inclusive of the representation dated 23rd September, 1998 and 26th September,1998 addressed to the Vice-Chairman, Mathura/Vrindavan Development Authority raising various objections about the levy. The petitioner received a cryptic reply on 23rd September, 1998 with reference to an earlier representation dated 17th September, 1998 filed by the petitioner on the same ground, reiterating the demand raised by means of the impugned memo dated 8th September, 1998. The petitioner sought allusion at this juncture to the provisions of Sections 35 and 36 of the Act, which refer to the levy and assessment of betterment charge. Such Sections are quoted hereunder : “35. Power of Authority to levy betterment charges.—(1) Where in the opinion of the Authority, as a consequence of any development scheme having been executed by the Authority in any development area, the value of any property in that area which has benefited by the development, has increased or will increase, the Authority shall be entitled to levy upon the owner of the property or any person having an interest therein a betterment charge in respect of the increase in value of the property resulting from the execution of the development; Provided that no betterment charge shall be levied in respect of lands owned by Government : Provided further that where any land belonging to Government has been granted by way of lease or licence by Government to any person, then that land and any building situate thereon shall be subject to a betterment charge under this Section. (2) Such betterment charge shall be an amount— (i) in respect of any property situate in the township or colony, if any, developed or in other area developed or re-developed equal to one-third of the amount; and (ii) in respect of property situated outside such township, colony or other areas, as aforesaid, not exceeding one-third of the amount, by which the value of the property on the completion of the execution of the development scheme, estimated as if the property were clear of buildings, exceeds the value of the property prior to such execution, estimated in like manner. 36. 36. Assessment of betterment charge by Authority.—(1) When it appears to the [Vice-Chairman] that any particular development scheme is sufficiently advanced to enable the amount of the betterment charge to be determined, the [Vice-Chairman] may, by an order made in that behalf, declare that for the purpose of determining the betterment charge the execution of the scheme shall be deemed to have been completed and shall thereupon give notice in writing to the owner of the property or any person having an interest therein that the [Vice-Chairman] proposes to assess the amount of the betterment charge in respect of the property under Section 34. (2) The [Vice-Chairman] shall then assess the amount of betterment charge payable by the person concerned after giving such person an opportunity to be heard and such person shall, within three months from the date of receipt of the notice in writing of such assessment from the [Vice-Chairman] inform the [Vice-Chairman] by a declaration in writing that he accepts the assessment or dissents from it. (3) When the assessment proposed by the [Vice-Chairman] is accepted by the person concerned within the period specified in sub-section (2) such assessment shall be final. (4) If the person concerned dissents from the assessment or fails to give the [Vice-Chairman] the information required by sub-section (2) within the period specified therein the matter shall be determined by the [Chairman] [and such determination shall not be questioned in any Court].” 5. The petitioner has submitted that a perusal of the aforesaid provisions indicates that a betterment charge can only be levied by the Development Authority as a consequence of any development having been executed by the Authority in an area, as a result of which any property in the area is benefited by the development, and has been increased or will increase in value. It is further submitted by the petitioner that the assessment of betterment charge by the Authority is a sine quo non with the scheme which has sufficiently advanced and assessed the amount of charges from the persons concerned after giving them opportunity of hearing within a period of three months from the receipt of such notice, which is required to be served mandatorily. It is further provided vide sub-section 4 of Section 36 of the Act that if the assessee dissents from the proposed assessment, the matter shall be finally determined by the Chairman of the Development Authority. According to the petitioner, a bare perusal of the statutory scheme of Sections 35 and 36 of the Act patently reveals that the respondent Authority has violated the terms of the above provisions and has levied the charges in complete violation of the provisions and the period stipulated by the aforesaid statutory provisions. Moreover, the respondent Authority once demanded and accepted the betterment charges from the petitioner is not entitled to raise fresh demand for the betterment charges once again with higher value and the interest upon the said charge without ever demanding the said charges in the past. 6. To resolve the dispute, we have firstly gone through the appropriate Act in this respect i.e. the Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973. From the preface of the Act, we find that the Act is made to provide for the development of certain areas of Uttar Pradesh according to plan and for matters ancillary thereto. Section 2(ggg) of the Act, as introduced by 1997 amendment, prescribes development fee, which is as follows : “2 (ggg) “development fee” means the fee levied upon a person or 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.” 7. Section 2 (ii) of the Act has been inserted by way of 1997 amendment which speaks for mutation charges, as follows : “2(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.” 8. Section 2 (kk) of the Act was also included by amendment of 1997, which speaks about stacking fees, as follows : “2(kk) “stacking fees “means the fees levied under Section 15 upon the person or body who keeps building materials on the land of the Authority or on a public street or public place.” 9. Section 2(ll) of the Act speaks for water fees. Section 2(ll) of the Act speaks for water fees. This Section was also inserted by way of amendment in the year 1997, which is as follows : “2(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 building.” 10. Therefore, all the clauses were inserted by 1997 amendment for the purpose of recovery of appropriate fees or charges as per Section 15 of the Act. Section 15 of the Act is quoted hereunder : “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 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 fees as may be prescribed by rules. (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. (3) On the receipt of an application for permission under sub-section (1), the Vice-Chairman after making such inquiry as it considers necessary in relation to any matter specified in clause (d) of sub- Section (2) of Section 9 or in relation to any other matter, shall, by order in writing either grant the permission, subject to such conditions, if any, as may be specified in the order or refuse to grant such permission : Provided that before making an order refusing such permission, the applicant shall be given a reasonable opportunity to show cause why the permission should not be refused : Provided further that the Vice-Chairman may before passing any order of such application give an opportunity to the applicant to make any correction therein or to supply any further particulars of documents or to make good any deficiency in the requisite fee with a view to bringing it in conformity with the relevant rules or regulations : Provided also that before granting permission, referred to in Section 14, the Vice-Chairman may get the fees and the charges levied under sub-section (2-A) deposited; (4) Where permission is refused, the grounds of such refusal shall be recorded in writing and communicated to the applicant. (5) Any person aggrieved by an order under sub-section (4) may appeal to the Chairman against that order within thirty days from the communication thereof and may after giving an opportunity of hearing to the appellant, and if necessary also to the representative of the Vice-Chairman either dismiss the appeal or direct the Chairman to grant the permission applied for with such modifications, or subject to such conditions, if any, as may be specified. (6) The Vice-Chairman shall keep in such form as may be prescribed by regulations a register of applications for permission under this Section. (7) The said register shall contain such particulars, including information as to the manner in which applications for permission have been dealt with, as may be prescribed by regulations, and shall be available for inspection by any member of the public at all reasonable hours on payment of such fee not exceeding rupees five as may be prescribed by regulations. (7) The said register shall contain such particulars, including information as to the manner in which applications for permission have been dealt with, as may be prescribed by regulations, and shall be available for inspection by any member of the public at all reasonable hours on payment of such fee not exceeding rupees five as may be prescribed by regulations. (8) Where permission is refused under this Section, the applicant or any person claiming through him shall not be entitled to get refund of the fee paid on the application for permission but the Vice-Chairman may, on an application for refund being made within three months of the communication of the grounds of the refusal under sub-section (4) direct refund of such portion of the fee as it may deem proper in the circumstances of the case. (9) If at any time after the permission has been granted under sub-section (3), the Vice-Chairman is satisfied that such permission was granted in consequence of any material misrepresentation made or any fraudulent statement or information furnished, he may cancel such permission, for reasons to be recorded in writing and any work done thereunder shall be deemed to have been done without such permission : Provided that a permission shall not be cancelled without affording to the person or body concerned a reasonable opportunity of being heard.” 11. We also find from such Section that sub-section (2-A) has also been inserted by selfsame amendment of the year 1997. It has provided only the aforesaid four charges. 12. From the paragraph 13 of the counter affidavit, we find that the respondent-development authority has relied upon a judgment in State of U.P. and others v. Malti Kaul (Smt.) and another, (1996) 10 SCC 425 which has also been referred by the petitioner. The said judgment requires a discussion with the facts of the present case. 12. From the paragraph 13 of the counter affidavit, we find that the respondent-development authority has relied upon a judgment in State of U.P. and others v. Malti Kaul (Smt.) and another, (1996) 10 SCC 425 which has also been referred by the petitioner. The said judgment requires a discussion with the facts of the present case. The specific case of the respondent authority is as follows : “In this connection it may be pertinent to state here that under the provisions of the Act and the Regulations the petitioner was in law required to deposit the external development charges prior to the sanction of the plan and even though the Development Authority vide its letter dated 22nd October, 1994 had intimated the petitioner about this fact, yet at the time of sanction of the plan this fact escaped attention of the Development Authority as a result of which the external development charges were not demanded from the petitioner at the time of sanction of the plan. This mistake could always be rectified and when it came to the knowledge of the Development Authority that the petitioner had not deposited the external development charges, it immediately called upon the petitioner by means of the notice dated 8th September, 1998 to deposit the same. The Development Authority, as stated above, had clearly resolved in its meeting held on 3rd September, 1993 to levy the external development charges at the rate of Rs. 90/- per square metre and, as such, the petitioner was required to deposit a sum of 6762 x 90 = Rs. 608598.00 towards external development charges. It may be mentioned that 6762.20 sq. metres is the total area of the plot of the petitioner. However, as the petitioner had already deposited an amount of Rs. 1,36,603/- towards betterment charges at the time of sanction of the plan, this amount was deducted from the amount of Rs. 608598.00. Thus, the petitioner was required to deposit only an amount of Rs. 4,71,995.00 plus interest.” 13. In support of the respondents’ contention, a supplementary counter affidavit has been filed showing the resolution of the Board of development authority in this regard being dated 03rd September, 1993. 14. 608598.00. Thus, the petitioner was required to deposit only an amount of Rs. 4,71,995.00 plus interest.” 13. In support of the respondents’ contention, a supplementary counter affidavit has been filed showing the resolution of the Board of development authority in this regard being dated 03rd September, 1993. 14. According to us, the development fees under Section 15 (2-A) of the Act, as inserted by U.P. Act 3 of 1997, is different from betterment charges as under Section 35 and/or Section 36 of the Act. Both belong to different chapters. When development belongs to Chapter V of the Act, betterment charges under Sections 35 and 36 belong to Chapter VIII. Hence, when the charges were levied by the respondent authority for giving sanction of plan of development of the building in question within the developed area, it is obviously called as development fees but not the betterment charge, which is a mistaken approach on the part of the authority. In other words, betterment charge as indicated by the authority in the real sense is the development fees. On acceptance of such development fees amongst others, the plan for development of the building was sanctioned and following the same the construction was made by the petitioner. So far as betterment charges are concerned, that can be assessed by the authority, provided the State Government by notification in the gazette makes rule for carrying out the purposes of the Act. Section 55 of the Act gives such rule making power to the State Government. Section 55 of the Act is quoted hereunder : “55. Power to make rules.—(1) The State Government may by notification in the Gazette, make rules for carrying out the purposes of this Act. (2) In particular and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power, such rules may provide for all or any of the following matters, namely— (a) the levy of fee on a memorandum of appeal under sub-section (5) of Section 15 or under sub-section (3) of Section 27; (b) the procedure to be followed by the Chairman in the determination of betterment charge, and the powers that it shall have for that purpose; (c) any other matter which has to be or may be, prescribed by rules. (3) All rules made under this Act shall, as soon as may be after they are made, be laid before each House of the State Legislature, while it is in session for a total period of not less than thirty days, extending in its one session or more than one successive session, and shall, unless some later date is appointed, take effect from the date of their publication in the Gazette subject to such modifications or annulments as the two Houses of the Legislature may, during the said period, agree to make, so however, that any such modification or annulment shall be without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done thereunder.” 15. So far as power to make Regulations under Section 56 of the Act is concerned, under its sub-section 2 (g), as added by U.P. Act 13 of 1975, the authority can make the Regulations for the fee to be paid on an application for permission under sub-section (1) of Section 15. Section 15 (1) of the Act relates to development of the land in the development area, thereby development fees can be charged for the purpose of construction of the building and sanction of the plan. Section 56 of the Act being relevant is also quoted hereunder : “56. Power to make regulations.—(1) An Authority may, with the previous approval of the State Government, make regulations, not inconsistent with this Act and the rules made thereunder, for the administration of the affairs of the Authority. Section 56 of the Act being relevant is also quoted hereunder : “56. Power to make regulations.—(1) An Authority may, with the previous approval of the State Government, make regulations, not inconsistent with this Act and the rules made thereunder, for the administration of the affairs of the Authority. (2) In particular, and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power, such regulations may provide for all or any of the following matters, namely— (a) the summoning and holding of meetings of the Authority, the time and place where such meetings are to be held, the conduct of business at such meetings and the number of members necessary to form a quorum thereat; (b) the powers and duties of the Secretary and Chief Accounts Officer of the Authority; (c) the salaries, allowance and conditions of service of the Secretary, Chief Accounts Officer and other officers and employees; (d) the procedure for carrying out the functions of the Authority under Chapters III and IV; (e) the form of register of application for permission and the particulars to be contained in such register; (f) the management of the properties of the Authority; (g) the fee to be paid on an application for permission under sub-section (1) of Section 15; (h) the fee to be paid for inspection or obtaining copies of documents and maps; (i) any other matter which has to be or may be prescribed by regulations. (3) Until an Authority is established for an area under this Act any regulation which may be made under sub-section (1) may be made by the State Government and any regulation so made may be altered or rescinded by the Authority concerned in exercise of its powers under sub-section (1).” 16. Even under Section 57 of the Act the authority has power to make bye-laws. Therefore, it is crystal clear that either in the case of development fees or in the case of betterment charges the Rules, Regulations and Bye-laws have to be framed to attract the same. A decision by the Board without sanction of the authority to claim the external development charge is without any sanction of law. More particularly, there are no words available in the Act by the name of “external development charges”. A decision by the Board without sanction of the authority to claim the external development charge is without any sanction of law. More particularly, there are no words available in the Act by the name of “external development charges”. The words “external development charges” are either synonyms or as far as closer to ‘betterment fees’ since it relates to the area external to the building concerned, which has been developed on the basis of the sanctioned plan upon payment of charges, being development charges amongst others. If such betterment charge is being claimed then the authority has to satisfy that there is a betterment of the locality in compliance with Sections 35 and 36 of the Act. But if no such development is done to claim the betterment charges and no rules, no regulations and no bye-laws are framed to that extent, obviously the claim in the name of external development happens to be external to the law and a claim to enrich the authority unjustly, therefore, such claim can not be held to be sustainable. Hence, the notices/orders impugned in this writ petition are liable to be quashed and are quashed. Thus, the writ petition is allowed, however, without imposing any cost. 17. In any event, passing of this order will not affect the right of the respondent authority from claiming betterment charges if the area is really improved to attract so and appropriate Rules and/or Regulations and/or Bye-laws are framed in connection thereto. Hon’ble Amitava Lala, ACJ.—I agree. ————