JUDGMENT M.W.CHANDWANI, J. - Heard. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. The petition challenges demand notice dtd. 17/7/2019 whereby the respondent levied various charges including development charge on the building and land of the petitioner. The thrust of grievances in this writ petition is about levy of the development charge on the developed land of the petitioner. 4. It is urged that despite of the fact that land is already developed in the form of plot prior to 1992, the respondent, while sanctioning revised plan submitted by the petitioner for reconstruction of the building, levied development charge also on land illegally. The principal reliefs prayed in this writ petition are as follows: "(a) quash and set aside the impugned order dtd. 19/3/2020 and the demand notices dtd. 17/07/2019, insofar as they levy development charges of Rs.61, 88, 757.00, Heritage Fess of Rs.2, 03, 580.00 (2% of Development Charges), Workers' Welfare Construction Cess at Rs.15, 57, 290.00, Security Deposit of Rs.55, 000.00 for earth removal, etc., and an amount of Rs.5, 08, 724.00 towards 'Plinth Area Check', which are clearly without any authority of law, and without any factual or legal basis. (Annexure-P Collectively). (b) Quash and set aside the impugned order dtd. 11/4/2014 (Annexure-I), and further direct the Respondent- Corporation to forthwith issue Part Occupancy Certificate to the Petitioner, in terms of the application dtd. 1/4/2014, filed by the Petitioner." 5. Facts germane for disposal of the petition are as follows: 6. The petitioner is a charitable trust which owns Plot no. 56 situated at Temple Road, Civil Lines, Nagpur. Four houses were constructed on the said plot prior to 1992. The petitioner proposed to reconstruct a building on the said plot. In the year 2007, the petitioner applied to the respondent for requisite permission for material alteration in houses by submitting the plan. The respondent issued demand notice seeking development charge of Rs.2, 07, 363.00 on2, 07, 363/- on building under Sec. 124A of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1966"). The petitioner accordingly paid the entire amount. The respondent issued building permit and commencement certificate for construction of the said building. After completion of the building, a request for grant of occupancy certificate was made to the respondent. The petitioner accordingly paid the entire amount. The respondent issued building permit and commencement certificate for construction of the said building. After completion of the building, a request for grant of occupancy certificate was made to the respondent. The respondent found that the petitioner has deviated from the sanctioned plan and therefore, rejected the application for occupancy certificate. A revised plan came to be submitted by the petitioner to the respondent. On 15/6/2017, while sanctioning the revised plan, the respondent issued the impugned demand notice to the petitioner asking the petitioner to pay the total amount of 70, 26, 847/-, Rs.2, 07, 363.00 on which includes development charge of Rs.2, 07, 363.00 on60, 60, 056/- on land, which is under challenge in this writ petition. 7. In affidavit-in-reply, the respondent has contended that inadvertently, it did not levy the development charge on the land while sanctioning the earlier building plan in the year 2008, therefore, the respondent included the development charge in respect of the land in subsequent demand notice when the revised plan of the building is submitted. The petitioner is required to pay the development charge on the land as per Sec. 124A of the Act of 1966. According to the respondent, the land in question is not a developed land. The respondent has rightly issued the impugned demand notice asking the petitioner to pay the development charge on the land. 8. Shri S. V. Manohar, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner would submit that in the year 2007, the petitioner had proposed to construct new building by material alteration in the existing houses constructed on the land in question. At that time, the respondent levied the development charge on the building and not on the land, which were duly paid by the petitioner. Since, the petitioner deviated from the sanctioned plan, it had to submit the revised plan. The respondent, while sanctioning the revised building plan, illegally demanded the development charge which the petitioner had already paid. The houses were constructed on the said land in the year 1910. The land in question is part of city survey, which itself goes to show that it is a sanctioned layout. The land in question is already a developed land, therefore, the respondent cannot levy the development charge on the land under Sec. 124A of the Act of 1966. The houses were constructed on the said land in the year 1910. The land in question is part of city survey, which itself goes to show that it is a sanctioned layout. The land in question is already a developed land, therefore, the respondent cannot levy the development charge on the land under Sec. 124A of the Act of 1966. In this regard, reference is made to the judgment of learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 1234/2007 (P. D. Gupta Infratec Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Nagpur Municipal Corporation), wherein it has been observed that Civil Lines area in Nagpur was developed about 70-75 years ago. According to him, at the most, the respondent can ask for development charge for the building and not for the land. The main thrust of the argument of the learned Senior Advocate is that in any case, the respondent cannot levy development charge on the land, which is already put to use and is a developed land. 9. Shri S. M. Puranik, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that levy of development charge by the planning authority is governed by Sec. 124A of the Act of 1966. Development charge can be levied on a land as well as on a building. He submitted that in the earlier demand of the year 2007-08, the respondent had levied development charge only on the building and not on the land. Since, levy of the development charge on development of the land was skipped in the year 2008, therefore, in the Demand Note dtd. 17/7/2019, it has been levied by correcting irregularity. According to him, the development charge is not levied twice on the land. He relied upon the judgment in the case of Anthony John Pereira Vs. Minister for Urban Development [ 1998 (2) Mh.L.J. 404 ]. According to him, the respondent has rightly levied the development charge on the land also and the writ petition is not maintainable, therefore, sought rejection of the writ petition. 10. Perusal of the application dtd. 24/1/2007 filed by the petitioner for seeking initial permission to make material alteration in the building depicts that it was for permission to material alteration in municipal house nos. 322, 323, 324 and 325, standing on Plot No. 56 in Ward No. 66, CTS No. 51 of Mouza Gadga situated on Temple Road. 10. Perusal of the application dtd. 24/1/2007 filed by the petitioner for seeking initial permission to make material alteration in the building depicts that it was for permission to material alteration in municipal house nos. 322, 323, 324 and 325, standing on Plot No. 56 in Ward No. 66, CTS No. 51 of Mouza Gadga situated on Temple Road. The petitioner has asserted on affidavit that four houses, in which material alteration were carried out by obtaining permission in the year 2008, were already constructed in 1910 on the said land. There is no denial to the specific pleading of the petitioner that the houses which were standing on the land in question were constructed prior to the year 1992. Thus, the land on which material alteration of the building was sought from the respondent was developed in the year 1910, when the houses were constructed on it. Now, the moot question arises before us is whether the respondent can levy development charge in accordance with Sec. 124A of the Act of 1966 on the land which is already instituted to use and is a developed land. 11. The levy, assessment and recovery of development charge are governed by Chapter VI-A (Sec. 124A to 124L) of the Act of 1966, which was inserted by the State legislature by way of amendment in the year 1992. The circumstances in which the State Legislature came to enact Chapter VI-A to provide for levy, assessment and recovery of development charge have been adverted to in the Statement of Objects and Reasons. In order to appreciate that background, it would be necessary to extract therefrom: "In the State of Maharashtra there is a distinct and discernible trend towards urbanisation. The bulk of urban population in the State is concentrated in and around Greater Bombay as also the other cities or towns for which municipal corporations or municipal councils have been constituted. This process of rapid urbanisation has brought in its wake human settlements and in turn the development of virgin or undeveloped lands in the form of buildings, to accommodate such settlements resulting in haphazard development of such lands without the necessary infrastructure of roads, water supplies, sewerage, drainage of storm water, electricity and street lights, etc. 2. This process of rapid urbanisation has brought in its wake human settlements and in turn the development of virgin or undeveloped lands in the form of buildings, to accommodate such settlements resulting in haphazard development of such lands without the necessary infrastructure of roads, water supplies, sewerage, drainage of storm water, electricity and street lights, etc. 2. The Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966, has been enacted to provide for planned development of urban areas, by providing, inter alia, for constitution of Regional Planning Boards, for preparation of Development plans and creation of new towns by means of constitution of Special Planning and Development Authorities. All these Plans and Schemes being capital intensive, the said authorities have not been able to achieve the desired results, mainly on account of lack of adequate funds for effective implementation of such Development Plans or Town Planning Schemes. It has, therefore, become imperative to mobilize additional resources for being placed at the disposal of Planning or Special Planning or Development Authority constituted under the said Act for effective implementation of the provisions of the said Act and to provide for proper amenities and facilities for the healthy growth of these cities and towns. The existing provisions of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act do not contain any provision for levy and collection of development charge by such Authority. It is, therefore, decided to suitably amend the said Act to provide for levy assessment and recovery of development charge by such authority on institution of use or change of use, of any land or building, or development of any land or building, for which permission is required under the said Act. Accordingly, a new Chapter VIA is being inserted containing appropriate provisions for such levy, assessment and collection of development charge, by the Planning or the Development Authority, initially at the minimum rates specified in the Second Schedule which is being added to the Act now and then later on at the rates to be prescribed by the said Authority, by framing necessary regulations in this behalf, subject to the minimum and maximum rates of such development charge as specified in the said Second Schedule. The Second Schedule specifies the minimum and maximum rates of development charge with reference to the user of land or building in the area of the different municipal corporations or councils. The Second Schedule specifies the minimum and maximum rates of development charge with reference to the user of land or building in the area of the different municipal corporations or councils. Other incidental provisions like procedure to be followed before framing of such regulations for prescribing the development charge by the Development Authority, for empowering the Authority to vary the rates of development charge within the limits specified in the Schedule, and provisions for appeal by the aggrieved person against the assessment made by the Authority are also being made in the Act. 3. In order to ensure that the proceeds of the development charge to be levied and collected by the Development Authority are utilised by the said Authority only for the purposes of planned development of the area within its jurisdiction, it is also being provided that a separate fund, namely "Development Fund" shall be created and shown separately in the budget. The Bill also contains certain other consequential and incidental amendments to the Act. 4. The Bill seeks further to amend the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966, to achieve the abovementioned objectives." 12. The Statement of Objects and Reasons underlying the enactment of the Amending Act takes due note of the distinct trend towards urbanization in Maharashtra and the concentration of the urban population in and around Greater Mumbai and other cities and towns in the State. Urbanization has generated increasing demands for the creation of an infrastructure that would provide basic civic amenities such as roads, water supply, sewerage and electricity in new town/ virgin or undeveloped lands. For providing these basic amenities in undeveloped area, there was a need to create fund. By way of insertion of Chapter VI-A in the Act of 1966, the authority was authorized to levy, assess and recover development charge at the time of institution of use of land or building or change in use of land or building. 13. This takes us to Sec. 124A(1) of the Act of 1966 whereby authority is empowered to levy of the development charge. Sec. 124A(1) of the Act of 1966 is read as under: "124A. 13. This takes us to Sec. 124A(1) of the Act of 1966 whereby authority is empowered to levy of the development charge. Sec. 124A(1) of the Act of 1966 is read as under: "124A. Levy of Development Charge (1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, the Planning Authority or the Development Authority (hereinafter in this Chapter collectively referred as "the Authority), shall levy within the area of its jurisdiction development charge on the institution of use or change of any land or building, or development of any land or building, for which permission is required under this Act, at the rates specified by or under the provisions of this Chapter: Provided that, where land appurtenant to a building is used for any purpose, independent of the building, development charge may be levied separately for the building and the land. (2) x x x x x x x x 14. The Object and Reasons of insertion of Chapter VI-A and provisions contained therein make it clear that development charge under Chapter-VI of the Act of 1966 is to be levied for providing basic civic amenities when undeveloped land/ virgin land is being instituted for use and not on the developed land or the land which is already instituted for use. 15. Thus, if a land is already developed, prior to 10/8/1992 when Chapter VI-A was inserted in the Act of 1966, no development charge can be levied on said land. Likewise, if a land is already developed in the form of layout, in accordance with the provision of Sec. 18 of the Act of 1966, the planning Authority cannot again levy the development charge at the time of proposal of construction of building on the said developed land unless there is change in use of the developed land. The reference can also be made to the case of Sanjay S/o. Lakhanlal Agnihotri Vs. Union of India [ 2018 (1) Mh.L.J. 760 ], which is relied by learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner, is reproduced here: "21. Insofar as levy and recovery or collection of land development charges is concerned, sec. 124-A of "1966 Act" shows that it can be assessed and demanded independently. Union of India [ 2018 (1) Mh.L.J. 760 ], which is relied by learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner, is reproduced here: "21. Insofar as levy and recovery or collection of land development charges is concerned, sec. 124-A of "1966 Act" shows that it can be assessed and demanded independently. The retrospective nature or arguments in relation thereto and fact that the land development charges can be levied and asked for only in absence of permission to develop already given in past demonstrate need to adopt case-wise approach. Whenever a person approaches and seeks sanction to a building plan, if his plot is in approved layout, it is clear that no development charges in relation thereto can be demanded. Development charges in that event can be only in relation to building i.e. further development to be carried out on already developed plot. It appears from the order of this Court dtd. 21/9/2011 in this case that an effort was made in that direction by this Court to find out whether the said charges have been recovered in respect of areas of old town where there has been no fresh development or in new areas where there has been fresh development." (Underlined by us) 16. In the case in hand, the land in question was already developed by constructing houses on it in the year 1910, much prior to year 1992 when Chapter VI-A of the Act of 1966 came into force. Further, layouts in Civil Lines area, where the land is situated, were drawn and developed much prior to 1992 as observed in P. D. Gupta Infratec Pvt. Ltd. (supra). It is nobody's case that there is a change in use of the land by the petitioner. Therefore, the respondent, while sanctioning material alteration in the existing building cannot levy the development charge on the land which was already put to use, when Chapter VI-A was incorporated in the Act of 1966. The respondent under the guise that the development charge was not levied earlier, while sanctioning material alteration in the building of the petitioner in the year 2008, cannot levy the development charge on the land without there being change in use of the said land. 17. The respondent under the guise that the development charge was not levied earlier, while sanctioning material alteration in the building of the petitioner in the year 2008, cannot levy the development charge on the land without there being change in use of the said land. 17. In case of Anthony John Pereira (supra) relied by the respondent, the permission was refused prior to 1992 and the fresh permission was being sought on the development land after the date of incorporation of Chapter VI-A in the Act of 1966 therefore, the High Court held that the case is not covered by proviso of Sec. 124A of the Act of 1966. Whereas, the facts of the present case are totally different. Hence, the case of Anthony John Pereira (supra) will not be applicable here. 18. In view thereof, the impugned demand notice, so far as it relates to levying of the development charge on the land, cannot pass muster. 19. Rule is accordingly made absolute by quashing and setting aside the impugned demand notice dtd. 17/7/2019 to the extent of levying the development charge of Rs.60, 60, 056.00 Rs.2, 07, 363.00 onthe land of the petitioner. The demand of Heritage Fee which is calculated at 2% of the development charge shall be reconsidered in view of the fact that no development charge is liable to be paid on the land. The respondent is directed to issue occupancy certificate as requested by the petitioner, if the petitioner complies all other conditions required under the law. The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No order as to costs.