Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1082 (ALL)

Pradeep Kumar Jain v. State Of U. P.

2025-08-26

MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, NAND PRABHA SHUKLA

body2025
JUDGMENT : NAND PRABHA SHUKLA, J. 1. Heard Shri Mohit Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Fuzail Ahmad Ansari, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents, and Shri Satyavrat Sahai, learned counsel for the contesting respondent – Kanpur Development Authority (KDA). 2. The instant writ petition has been filed praying inter alia for the following relief: "A. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari, calling for records concerning the impugned exparte demand notice dated 02.7.2025 (Annexure-1) issued by respondent no.3, demanding a sum of Rs.20,45,030/- from the petitioner as against non-consruction charges since 17.6.2014 till 16.6.2026, and to quash the same. B. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari, calling for records concerning the impugned exparte demand notice dated 22.4.2025 (Annexure-2) issued by respondent no.3, demanding a sum of Rs.17,53,187/- from the petitioner as against non-construction charges from 04.1.2002 till 16.6.2025, and to quash the same. C. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus, commanding the respondent no.2 to extend the time for construction of sanction map dated 25.2.2016, within time specified by this Hon'ble Court. D. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus, commanding the respondent no.3 to decide the application of petitioner dated 13.2.2025 (Annexure- 11), for grant of No Objection Certificate, within time specified by this Hon'ble Court." 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner is the proprietor of M/s Gaurav Enterprises, situated at Coolie Bazar, Kanpur Nagar, engaged in iron and steel trade. He submits that the Kanpur Development Authority (KDA) launched a scheme for allotment of industrial plots in Ispat Nagar in 1984-85, pursuant to which the petitioner applied on 30.05.1986 for a 360 sq. meter plot. Plot No. 44, Block B, was allotted vide letter dated 05.09.1986, and the requisite deposit was made. On 13.01.1998, a demand for the balance amount was raised and complied with, but possession and lease were not given. Much later, a lease deed was executed on 04.01.2002 and registered on 15.01.2002, yet possession was still withheld. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had repeatedly represented before KDA, including application dated 07.04.2015, after which Rs. 81,500/- was deposited towards water and sewer charges, and finally the possession was delivered to him on 13.07.2015. Thereafter, he deposited Rs. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had repeatedly represented before KDA, including application dated 07.04.2015, after which Rs. 81,500/- was deposited towards water and sewer charges, and finally the possession was delivered to him on 13.07.2015. Thereafter, he deposited Rs. 2,09,720/- for sanction of building plan, which was approved on 25.02.2016 granting five years for construction. For arranging finance, the petitioner sought NOC on several dates, including 2016, 2018, and lastly on 04.08.2023, but none was issued, preventing bank loan and construction. Due to financial hardship during 2018-2020 and lack of NOC, construction could not be undertaken though the plot was used for storage. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that on 21.01.2021, the petitioner again sought extension of plan and NOC, and renewed the request on 13.02.2025. Shockingly, instead of granting extension, respondent no.3 issued demand notice dated 22.04.2025 claiming Rs. 17,53,187/- as non-construction charges retrospectively from 2002, when possession itself was not with the petitioner. Another notice dated 02.07.2025 was issued demanding Rs.20,45,030/- up to 16.06.2026, even covering future period, and threatened re-entry. These notices are arbitrary, issued without opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and contrary to the terms of the lease deed which permits only 3% of lease rent as non-construction charge for 12 months, i.e., Rs.1,890/-. He submits that re-entry cannot arise when delay was due to KDA's failure. Publication in 'Dainik Jagran' dated 07.07.2025 further prejudiced the petitioner though objections of others are pending. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned demands being illegal, arbitrary, and violative of natural justice, deserve to be quashed. 6. Per contra, Shri Satyavrat Sahai, learned counsel for the contesting respondent – KDA, resisted the relief and submitted that the impugned demand notices are fully sustainable in view of the provisions of Section 18(4-a) of the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 1973'). In support of his submissions, he placed reliance upon the Government Order dated 22.08.1998 and contended that the impugned notices are fully justified. However, he submitted that in case the petitioner moves an appropriate application for extension of time after depositing the amount demanded by the respondent authority, the same would definitely be considered in accordance with law. 7. In support of his submissions, he placed reliance upon the Government Order dated 22.08.1998 and contended that the impugned notices are fully justified. However, he submitted that in case the petitioner moves an appropriate application for extension of time after depositing the amount demanded by the respondent authority, the same would definitely be considered in accordance with law. 7. Considering the factual situation, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned notices which warrant interference in view of provisions of the Act, 1973 and G.O. dated 22.08.1998. The Government Order dated 22.08.1998, issued by the Housing Section-1, Uttar Pradesh, specifically directs all Development Authorities to take strict action against lessees who fail to raise construction within the stipulated period or within the extended time. The said G.O. was issued in the backdrop of insertion of Section 18(4-a) of the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 , which came into effect on 02.05.1997, and categorically provides that if construction is not raised even after five years from the date of allotment, then with effect from 01.05.1998 onwards, an annual non-construction charge at the rate of 2% of the current market value of the plot is leviable. The G.O. further clarifies that such non-construction charge is applicable only after 01.05.1998 and not prior thereto, and that the basis of 2% charge shall be the prevailing market value of the land, being either the sector rate of the Authority or, in absence thereof, the circle rate notified by the District Magistrate for purposes of stamp duty. The G.O. also directs the authorities to widely publicize this provision, conduct surveys of unconstructed plots, issue notices to leaseholders, and in case of non-payment, recover the charges as arrears of land revenue. The limited exemptions contemplated therein relate only to cases where applications for conversion of leasehold into freehold were filed before 01.05.1998 and decided within one month, or where fresh applications were invited and freehold charges deposited by 15.10.1999. The petitioner does not fall in any such exempted category. 8. In the present case, the admitted position is that despite allotment made in 1986 and execution of lease deed in 2002, the petitioner has failed to raise construction within the statutory and extended periods. The petitioner does not fall in any such exempted category. 8. In the present case, the admitted position is that despite allotment made in 1986 and execution of lease deed in 2002, the petitioner has failed to raise construction within the statutory and extended periods. Mere pleas of non-issuance of NOC or financial hardship cannot absolve him from the statutory liability created under Section 18(4-a) of the Act, 1973 and reinforced by the G.O. dated 22.08.1998, which has binding force upon all Development Authorities. Therefore, the impugned demand notices dated 22.04.2025 and 02.07.2025, being in consonance with the statutory scheme as well as the binding Government Order, cannot be said to suffer from any illegality, arbitrariness, or violation of natural justice. 9. However, in order to balance the equities, it is directed that in case the petitioner deposits the outstanding amount within three weeks from today, the KDA shall process the petitioner's application for extension of time, so that the petitioner may raise construction over the allotted site. The said application shall be decided within a further period of six weeks. 10. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is disposed of.