N.K. Batabyal, J. - (1.) The writ petitioner is the owner of premises No. 67 R.N. Tagore Road, Ward No. 12 of Khardah under Panihati Municipality. She obtained a building plan sanctioned on 28.1.91 for construction of a four -storeyed building providing two years time for completion of the building. The building; was constructed upto the second storey but due to unavoidable circumstances it could not be completed in time. Hence the petitioner made a prayer for renewal of the plan. Renewal fee of Rupees 200/ - as demanded was paid. But the Municipality did not renew the sanctioned plan dated 28.1.91 claiming Rupees 1,31,614/ - as development charges without any basis. According to the petitioner, when renewal has been agreed upon, then the renewal has to be granted as otherwise the petitioner would suffer loss of thousands of rupees. The petitioner demanded justice through her advocate but to no effect. Hence, the writ petitioner has come before this Court for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to grant renewal of the Sanctioned Building Plan and a writ of certiorari quashing the demand for development charges. In the affidavit -in -opposition on behalf of Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 5 the material allegations made in the writ petition except what are matters of record have been denied. It is not disputed that the writ petition is the owner of holding No. 67 R.N. Tagore Road, Panihati Municipality or that the obtained a sanctioned plan on 28.1.91 and that she failed to construct the building, without two years. So, the plan expired on 27.1.93. She made another application for renewal of the sanction of the said plan. She deposited Rs. 200/ - as cost of sanction fee but she failed to deposit Rs. 1,31,614 - as development charges which was levied under the provisions of W.B. Town & Country (Planning &. Development) Act 1979. It has been further stated that ii the writ -petitioner was dissatisfied with the order of assessment of the Development Charges, there was a provision for appeal under Sec. 105 of W.B.T. & C(P&D) Act, 197& So the writ petition is not maintainable, it has been asserted that the demand for development charge is legal, bonafide and justified and the writ petition should be rejected.
(2.) Annexure - 'A' to the writ -petition shows that the petitioner was requested to deposit Rs. 200/ - as fees for granting permission by the Municipality. In the last line, in a cryptic way, the petitioner was informed of "D.C. Rs. 1,31,614/ -". It appears from annexure - 'N' (page 23) of the affidavit -in -opposition that the matter has been fully explained and the petitioner has been asked to deposit Rs. 1,31,614/ - as Development charge within a specified time.
(3.) It has been argued by Mr. Das Gupta, ld. advocate for the writ petitioner that in the matter of sanctioning or renewing a sanctioned plan in areas coming under the provisions of the B.M. Act. The provisions of the W.B.T. & C (T & D) Act, 1979, can't override the provision of the B.M. Act, 1932 in this respect.;