- (1.) D. P. Mohapatra, C. J. The core ques tion, which falls for determination in this case, is whether the Agra Development Authority (Development Authority for short) is competent to demand and realise external development charges and supervision charges from the petitioner Rangji Sahkari Avas Samiti Limited, Agra, in ad vance before any agreement is entered and before any development work is done by the Development Authority on the land in question ? Demand raised on certain other counts is not disputed and therefore not relevant for the purpose of the case.
(2.) IN the writ petition, the petitioner has prayed, inter alia, to quash the order dated 11-11996 of Vice Chairman of the Development Authority (respondent No. 2) confirming the demand of Rs. 59,89,484 as external development charges and Rs. 4,08,000. 67 as supervision charges (An-nexure 7 ). The petitioner has also prayed for a i direction to the respondents to sanction the lay out plan submitted by it forthwith and to refund the sum of Rs. 5,00,000 paid to the Development Authority as external development charges. The factual matrix of the case relevant for the determination and over which no dispute has been raised before us may be stated thus: The petitioner society submitted a lay out plan to the Development Authority for its approval. Though the said plan was approved vide order dated 24-7-1991 no agreement has yet been entered into be tween the parties. No external development work has also been done by the Development Authority on the land of the petitioner. Initially the Development Authority had demanded a sum of Rs. 5,59,300 as external development charges and Rs. 3,69,138 as supervision charges from the petitioner. Subequently the amounts were revised of Rs. 59,89,484 on the former count and Rs. 4,08,000. 67 on the latter count. The petitioner challenged the demands in Writ Petition No. 3813 of 1993. This Court by its judgment rendered on 13-9-1995 ordered, inter alia, that if the petitioner makes a representation in regard to external development charges and super vision charges, the same shall be decided by a speaking order in regard to approval of the plan, submitted by the petitioner consistent with the decision given on the repre sentation, within three weeks from the date of production of the certified copy of the order before him and until decision of such representation further recovery from the petitioner on the two counts will remain stayed.
(3.) ON an application filed by the petitioner for modification of the said order (Civil Misc. Modification Application No. 51650 of 1995) this Court by order dated 24-11-1995 modified the order dated 13-9- 1995 to the extent that if a representation is made by the petitioner pursuant to the said order then the same will be disposed of by the Development Authority specifying the work done by it within two weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of the order along with the representation before the Development Authority. In pursuance of the judgment/orders passed by this Court, the Vice Chairman of the Development Authority passed the impugned order vide Annexure 7 holding, inter alia, that the Development Authority is competent to realise in advance the amounts in question towards external development charges and supervision charges. Hence the grievance of the petitioner. The thrust of the submissions of Sri V. K. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, is that no power is vested in the Development Authority under the U. P. (Regulation of Building Operations) Act, 1958, U. P. (Regulation of Building Opera tions) Regulations, 1960 as also U. P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 to levy/realise any amount as external develop ment charges or supervision charges even before agreement is entered into between the parties. Elucidating the point, Sri Singh submitted that while granting permis sion to develop the area as a colony it is open to the Development Authority to attach conditions requiring the applicant to under take developments in the area and in case the applicant fails to abide by the condi tions/stipulations in the agreement then ac tion may be taken against it in the manner prescribed in Section 33 of the U. P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973. He, however, did not dispute the position that if the Development Authority undertakes certain development work which the person responsible for carrying out the develop ment has failed to do, then it is entitled to realise the amount spent for such develop ment work. According to Sri Singh, before an agreement has been entered into be tween the parties and before any develop ment work has been done, the Development Authority is not entitled to demand external development charges or supervision char ges. He placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Ahemdabad Urban Development Authority v. Sharad Kumar Jayantikumar Pasawalla and others AIR 1992 S. C. 2038 and the decision of this Court in the case of Smt. Malti Kaul and another v. Allahabad Development Authority, Allahabad and another (1995) 2 L. B. E. C. 974.;