Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 2591 (ALL)

Jai Prakash Singh v. State of U. P.

2016-07-27

MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, V.K.SHUKLA

body2016
JUDGMENT Learned Standing Counsel has accepted notice on behalf respondent no. 1. Sri S.P. Singh, Advocate has entered appearance on behalf of the respondent nos. 2,3 & 4. On the matter being taken up today, only issue i.e. being sought to be raised on behalf of the petitioner for the time being, is in reference of demand that has been made for Sub Division Charges. It has been submitted that earlier this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 61669 of 2010 (Nisha Kumari Versus State of U.P. and others) as well as in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 56285 of 2013 (Smt, Rekha Rani and another Versus State of U.P and others) has proceeded to disapprove the said demand of sub division charge in addition to the charges levied by the authority, and it has also been informed that order passed by this Court, has been challenged in Apex Court in Special Leave to Appeal No.21560 of 2014 and Special Leave to Appeal No. 7065 of 2014 and judgement of this Court has been stayed. It has been contended that once matter is sub-judice before Apex Court and same is still pending for consideration, then till such matter is not decided in regard to sub division charge said demand may be kept in abeyance. Sri S.P. Singh, Advocate contended that now statutory rules have been framed, known as Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development (Assessment, Levy and Collection of Development Fee) Rules, 2014 and said rules now permit levying of such demand. We have also the occasion to peruse the various writ petitions that have been before us being Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.31311 of 2015 (Subhash Chandra Kesarwani Versus State of U.P. and others), Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.11880 of 2016 (Smt. Chandrawati Vs. State of U.P. and others) and Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 8458 of 2016 (Anjali Tiwari Versus State of U.P. and others) and what we find from the writ petitions is that this Court on prima facie basis has accepted such arguments and accordingly before us, there is no reason to take a different view. Accordingly in the same way and manner, we proceed to pass order that present matter be taken up alongwith record of Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.31311 of 2015 (Subhash Chandra Kesarwani Versus State of U.P. and others), Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.11880 of 2016 (Smt. Chandrawati Vs. Accordingly in the same way and manner, we proceed to pass order that present matter be taken up alongwith record of Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.31311 of 2015 (Subhash Chandra Kesarwani Versus State of U.P. and others), Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.11880 of 2016 (Smt. Chandrawati Vs. State of U.P. and others) and Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 8458 of 2016 (Anjali Tiwari Versus State of U.P. and others). We further proceed to pass order that pursuant to the demand notice dated 9.2.2016, petitioner be not forced to make payment of sub division charge that has been so demanded, subject to furnishing of undertaking that in the event of failure of writ petitions in question, the entire amount would be paid to the Development Authority along with 6% simple interest. In view of this, petitioner should file affidavit before the Development Authority mentioning therein that in the event writ petitions fails, then she would make payment of sub divisional charges along with 6% simple interest within three months from the date of passing of final orders. In view of this after undertaking is furnished subject to payment of other charges but for sub-division charges pursuant to the demand notice dated 9.2.2016, map in question be provisionally released in favour of petitioner.