JUDGMENT 1. They are heard on I.A.No.11945/2014 an application for condoning the delay of about six months in filing of this writ appeal. 2. Keeping in view the reasons indicated in the application attributing administrative procedure to be followed for filing of the appeal and finding the reasons to be bona fide, I.A.No.11945/2014 is allowed. Delay in filing of this appeal is condoned. 3. In this appeal under section 2(1) of Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaya Peeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005, challenge is made to an order dated 29.1.2014 passed by the learned writ Court in W.P. No.4988/2013 whereby an order dated 12.2.2013 Annexure P/6 filed in the writ petition in the matter of levying charges for change of land use under the Madhya Pradesh Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Niyam, 2012 (herein after referred to as “Rules of 2012”) has been quashed. 4. For the purpose of modification and development plan/zoning plan Rules of 2012 was enforced and the petitioner was granted permission for change of the land use vide Notification dated 13.6.2012. As the Rules of 2012 did not have retrospective effect, learned writ Court has interfered into the matter and levy of fee under rule 15 has been quashed. 5. Having considered the rival contentions made, we find that under section 23-A of the M.P. Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973, a proviso has been added on 3.1.2012 which reads as under :- “[Provided that the State Government may: (i) impose such conditions as it considers appropriate while modifying the plan; (ii) Prescribe the minimum size of land for each category of land use which may be considered for change; (iii) while modifying the plan, levy a charge not exceeding 10% of the market value of the land involved. The scale of levy for various category of cases and the manner in which the market value may be determined shall be prescribed; (iv) prescribe the category of cases which may be exempted from clause (ii) and or (iii).]” (Emphasis Supplied) 6. As per the first part of the (iii)rd Proviso (i.e. the underlined portion) while modifying the plan, levy of a charge not exceeding 10% of the market value of the land involved is permissible. As per the first part of the (iii)rd Proviso (i.e. the underlined portion) while modifying the plan, levy of a charge not exceeding 10% of the market value of the land involved is permissible. That being so, the State Government is only entitled to levy charge to the extent of the limits provided under the said Proviso as reproduced herein above and not in accordance to the provisions of rule 15 of the rules of 2012 which came into force much after the permission was granted on 13.6.2012 vide Annexure P/3. 7. Learned writ Court has not committed any error in holding that levy of charges under rule 15 is not permissible for the simple reason that it came into force much after the change was permitted on 13.6.2012. 8. That being so, we allow this writ appeal to the limited extent that the State Government shall be entitled to levy charges for change of land used in accordance to the first part of (iii) proviso to rule 23-A and not in accordance to provisions of rule 15 of rules of 2012. 9. Accordingly, we remand the matter back to the competent authority with liberty to proceed for levy of charges, if so advised, in accordance to first part of Proviso (iii) of rule 23-A as reproduced herein above (i.e. the underlined portion). 10. With the aforesaid liberty to the State Government, this writ appeal stands disposed of.