w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



M/S Godwin Construction Pvt. Ltd. Thru M.D. {Civil} v/s State of U.P. Thru Prin. Secy. Housing & Others


Company & Directors' Information:- L & W CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45201KA2006PTC039095

Company & Directors' Information:- S V HOUSING PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U70109DL2006PTC150816

Company & Directors' Information:- N H CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45201DL2006PTC144604

Company & Directors' Information:- C S CONSTRUCTION COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45201DL2005PTC140236

Company & Directors' Information:- S D CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U45209WB1993PTC058947

Company & Directors' Information:- V G P HOUSING PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U65922TN1972PTC006240

Company & Directors' Information:- GODWIN CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45202UP1999PTC024555

Company & Directors' Information:- M K R CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45201DL2003PTC121828

Company & Directors' Information:- R K CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U00500BR1984PTC001953

Company & Directors' Information:- T D CONSTRUCTION COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U70101AS2002PTC006719

Company & Directors' Information:- H N CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45200JH2007PTC012923

Company & Directors' Information:- L V CONSTRUCTION COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45201UP1998PTC023382

Company & Directors' Information:- B R HOUSING PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U45203WB1995PTC073083

Company & Directors' Information:- A G L CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45400WB2008PTC126885

Company & Directors' Information:- C. K. CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U00501BR1990PTC003909

Company & Directors' Information:- CONSTRUCTION INDIA PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U45201GJ1979PTC003375

Company & Directors' Information:- H R CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45201UP2002PTC026867

Company & Directors' Information:- M B N CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U70101AS2004PTC007322

Company & Directors' Information:- G K S HOUSING LIMITED [Amalgamated] CIN = U45201TN1996PLC036147

Company & Directors' Information:- N J CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U70102WB2012PTC186978

Company & Directors' Information:- C S R CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1994PTC060034

Company & Directors' Information:- T M G CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45203UP2000PTC025597

Company & Directors' Information:- C D S CONSTRUCTION CO PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U45200MH1982PTC026703

Company & Directors' Information:- R. J. HOUSING PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45400WB2007PTC114792

Company & Directors' Information:- P J CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45201AS2000PTC006365

Company & Directors' Information:- A R C CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U45202MH1996PTC096950

Company & Directors' Information:- N B S A M CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45201DL2005PTC143267

Company & Directors' Information:- J M D CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U70101WB1993PTC057456

Company & Directors' Information:- S R K CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45200BR1998PTC008483

Company & Directors' Information:- INDIA HOUSING LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45200PN2008PLC131883

Company & Directors' Information:- V & C CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1992PTC049012

Company & Directors' Information:- S B CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45203OR1994PTC003672

Company & Directors' Information:- O A CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45203AR2005PTC007930

Company & Directors' Information:- R D HOUSING PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U70101WB1996PTC081099

Company & Directors' Information:- J C CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45203AS1999PTC005975

Company & Directors' Information:- G C HOUSING PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45201DL2003PTC122011

Company & Directors' Information:- N A CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45200MH2009PTC192764

Company & Directors' Information:- N CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45201DL2006PTC146888

Company & Directors' Information:- V. K. CONSTRUCTION COMPANY PVT. LTD. [Active] CIN = U45102WB1991PTC050570

Company & Directors' Information:- M M CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U45200GJ1995PTC027508

Company & Directors' Information:- P. L. G. CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45400DL2007PTC171110

Company & Directors' Information:- L AND C CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45201KA2001PTC028456

Company & Directors' Information:- C R CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U45209WB1960PTC024811

Company & Directors' Information:- J S CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U45201OR1981PTC000921

Company & Directors' Information:- A & A HOUSING AND CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U27101UP1988PTC010107

Company & Directors' Information:- S H A CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45202DL1996PTC076831

Company & Directors' Information:- S N S CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45204HR2009PTC039160

Company & Directors' Information:- A V M CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45202GJ2007PTC050521

Company & Directors' Information:- A H CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45201TN1990PTC019675

Company & Directors' Information:- J. D. HOUSING PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45309PN2016PTC166622

Company & Directors' Information:- A D CONSTRUCTION CO PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45201UP1984PTC006464

Company & Directors' Information:- A N HOUSING PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45400UP2008PTC035479

Company & Directors' Information:- G V G CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U70102TN2009PTC072766

Company & Directors' Information:- D G CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U70102JH2012PTC000717

Company & Directors' Information:- J B F CONSTRUCTION COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45200JK2008PTC002952

Company & Directors' Information:- K R P CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U45200MH1989PTC053580

Company & Directors' Information:- R S M CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45201DL2005PTC142245

Company & Directors' Information:- R & S CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45201BR2012PTC018727

Company & Directors' Information:- B M S CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U70101WB2006PTC110196

Company & Directors' Information:- E H CONSTRUCTION CO PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U45209WB1984PTC037174

Company & Directors' Information:- A C K CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45203PN2002PTC017065

Company & Directors' Information:- D. M. CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74140WB2000PTC091230

Company & Directors' Information:- B M CONSTRUCTION CO PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U70101WB1987PTC043414

Company & Directors' Information:- D L HOUSING PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45400WB2009PTC135703

Company & Directors' Information:- P D CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45201MH2007PTC171650

Company & Directors' Information:- R G HOUSING PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U70102UP2012PTC052735

Company & Directors' Information:- A M CONSTRUCTION P LTD. [Active] CIN = U99999WB1990PTC050255

Company & Directors' Information:- S. Z. CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999WB2011PTC163934

Company & Directors' Information:- P K S CONSTRUCTION CO PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45200HP2004PTC027694

Company & Directors' Information:- H D G CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1988PTC032183

Company & Directors' Information:- S R B CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45201DL2004PTC130817

Company & Directors' Information:- N T C CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45201KL2001PTC014853

Company & Directors' Information:- S. P. CONSTRUCTION INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U70100WB2019PTC233077

Company & Directors' Information:- S A M CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45200HR2020PTC088988

Company & Directors' Information:- C S CONSTRUCTION INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45200MH2020PTC346811

Company & Directors' Information:- B B HOUSING PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U70109WB1997PTC084775

Company & Directors' Information:- G B CONSTRUCTION COMPANY PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U74210PB1995PTC016038

Company & Directors' Information:- A K CONSTRUCTION CO PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U45400WB1983PTC035682

Company & Directors' Information:- D. D. A. CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45201JH2008PTC013043

Company & Directors' Information:- K. G. G. CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45400MN2010PTC008256

Company & Directors' Information:- G N B B CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U70101AS2004PTC007418

Company & Directors' Information:- MD INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999DL2016PTC306314

Company & Directors' Information:- M E CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45200DL2007PTC171643

Company & Directors' Information:- C S COMPANY CONSTRUCTION LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45201KL1997PLC011174

Company & Directors' Information:- M. P. HOUSING PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45200UP2007PTC033329

Company & Directors' Information:- S K CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U45201WB1994PTC065714

Company & Directors' Information:- MD R INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72400DL1999PTC097812

Company & Directors' Information:- A B HOUSING & CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U70101DL2011PTC214624

Company & Directors' Information:- D T M CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U45201WB1978PTC031730

Company & Directors' Information:- S K J HOUSING PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U63023WB1999PTC089993

Company & Directors' Information:- D L CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U45400WB1982PTC035570

Company & Directors' Information:- S V G CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1994PTC055629

Company & Directors' Information:- M N P CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45200MH1980PTC022351

Company & Directors' Information:- A H A CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45400UP2010PTC040773

Company & Directors' Information:- S T S CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U60109WB1996PTC081825

Company & Directors' Information:- J J CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U45200WB1989PTC046714

Company & Directors' Information:- D P CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U70101WB1987PTC042320

Company & Directors' Information:- G S CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U45201WB1994PTC063238

Company & Directors' Information:- S E CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U45202WB1988PTC044630

Company & Directors' Information:- S V R HOUSING INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45200AP2009PTC064511

Company & Directors' Information:- R K HOUSING PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1988PTC032252

Company & Directors' Information:- H K CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U45201GJ1981PTC004160

Company & Directors' Information:- A V CONSTRUCTION CO PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U45202PB1982PTC004971

Company & Directors' Information:- G N CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45202OR2000PTC006244

Company & Directors' Information:- J HOUSING PRIVATE LTD [Active] CIN = U74899DL1980PTC010338

Company & Directors' Information:- K P A HOUSING PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45201TN2005PTC055354

Company & Directors' Information:- D P T CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45202MH2001PTC131559

Company & Directors' Information:- J CONSTRUCTION INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45200TZ2012PTC018250

Company & Directors' Information:- V. D. P. HOUSING PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U70102UP2012PTC054142

Company & Directors' Information:- S K E CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45202JH2012PTC000666

Company & Directors' Information:- A K G CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED [Converted to LLP and Dissolved] CIN = U45201DL2005PTC134347

Company & Directors' Information:- L J CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL2005PTC142321

Company & Directors' Information:- G R E HOUSING PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U70102AP2008PTC061004

Company & Directors' Information:- R H P CONSTRUCTION COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45203MP2001PTC014739

Company & Directors' Information:- R AND M CONSTRUCTION COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45202UP1994PTC017286

Company & Directors' Information:- B AND R CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U45201AS1990PTC003431

Company & Directors' Information:- J K CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U74210OR1987PTC001858

Company & Directors' Information:- B T CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U70101WB1997PTC085448

Company & Directors' Information:- P V CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U70100DL1998PTC097116

Company & Directors' Information:- M T CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U26933OR1985PTC001496

Company & Directors' Information:- A K CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U29248UR1982PTC005795

Company & Directors' Information:- G M HOUSING PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U99999MH1994PTC076203

Company & Directors' Information:- P B CONSTRUCTION (INDIA) LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U01131TN1995PLC032650

Company & Directors' Information:- S K P CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45201CT2008PTC020585

Company & Directors' Information:- A P G CONSTRUCTION COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45400DL2007PTC168160

Company & Directors' Information:- B. CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD. [Strike Off] CIN = U00894BR1989PTC003616

Company & Directors' Information:- Y S K CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45201DL2005PTC134417

Company & Directors' Information:- P K A S CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74899DL2005PTC138117

Company & Directors' Information:- R G M CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED [Under Process of Striking Off] CIN = U45200BR1992PTC004863

Company & Directors' Information:- A TO Z CONSTRUCTION CO PRIVATE LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U70101DL1987PTC029674

Company & Directors' Information:- O S CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U00351JH1990PTC003764

Company & Directors' Information:- D I CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1994PTC061454

Company & Directors' Information:- P N CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED [Converted to LLP] CIN = U45201DL2003PTC122894

Company & Directors' Information:- A + E CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1990PTC042290

Company & Directors' Information:- S N CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U45203OR1983PTC001211

Company & Directors' Information:- K K HOUSING PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45200DL2012PTC232532

Company & Directors' Information:- D L F HOUSING AND CONSTRUCTION LIMITED [Not available for efiling] CIN = U45200DL1981PLC011209

Company & Directors' Information:- V R HOUSING PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45201AP1998PTC030550

Company & Directors' Information:- J. K. D. CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45209PB2009PTC033102

Company & Directors' Information:- A. S. HOUSING PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45209PB2012PTC036226

Company & Directors' Information:- B H CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45200MH2009PTC193976

Company & Directors' Information:- K L G CONSTRUCTION INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45201MH2015PTC264933

Company & Directors' Information:- J W CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45400MH2010PTC198916

Company & Directors' Information:- S. N. HOUSING PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45400MH2010PTC202407

Company & Directors' Information:- U N CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45400PN2014PTC150730

Company & Directors' Information:- P & M HOUSING PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U70102MH2012PTC229509

Company & Directors' Information:- D. H. HOUSING PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U70102MH2012PTC237322

Company & Directors' Information:- N K HOUSING PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45200MH2003PTC139304

Company & Directors' Information:- G T K CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45200MH1996PTC096261

Company & Directors' Information:- J B CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U45200MH2004PTC025668

Company & Directors' Information:- U S CONSTRUCTION AND COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45200MH2004PTC149583

Company & Directors' Information:- C S R HOUSING PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45400TG2012PTC078681

Company & Directors' Information:- K-HOUSING PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45200TN2009PTC070655

Company & Directors' Information:- L R HOUSING PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U70100TG2013PTC089981

Company & Directors' Information:- R M J CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U70102UP2010PTC040949

Company & Directors' Information:- M V CONSTRUCTION COMPANY PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U45400WB1967PTC011413

Company & Directors' Information:- A P L CONSTRUCTION COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45209HP2010PTC031395

Company & Directors' Information:- H AND K CONSTRUCTION COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U70200HP2014PTC000633

Company & Directors' Information:- I. A. A. CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45204DL2011PTC220447

Company & Directors' Information:- K N S HOUSING PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45400DL2007PTC167504

Company & Directors' Information:- R M D CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45400DL2008PTC185164

Company & Directors' Information:- A R M CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45400DL2008PTC185770

Company & Directors' Information:- R C HOUSING PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1988PTC032258

Company & Directors' Information:- G-5 CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45400DL2014PTC265907

Company & Directors' Information:- U P CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45400DL2014PTC271791

Company & Directors' Information:- V 2 S CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45400DL2014PTC273750

Company & Directors' Information:- A T N CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45400DL2015PTC288656

Company & Directors' Information:- I G CONSTRUCTION COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45201DL1996PTC077365

Company & Directors' Information:- P P S CONSTRUCTION COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45201DL2005PTC138608

Company & Directors' Information:- K. C. CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45201DL2012PTC231726

Company & Directors' Information:- N R D CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45201DL2012PTC244905

Company & Directors' Information:- W B HOUSING COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U70109DL2013PTC250413

Company & Directors' Information:- S A Z CONSTRUCTION COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U70102DL2014PTC267130

Company & Directors' Information:- B G HOUSING PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U70101DL2004PTC124095

Company & Directors' Information:- A & Z CONSTRUCTION CO. PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U70101DL2012PTC231712

Company & Directors' Information:- B & U CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45203GJ2013PTC075424

Company & Directors' Information:- C P CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U70101WB1988PTC043759

Company & Directors' Information:- K P CONSTRUCTION (INDIA) PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U74210WB1985PTC039394

Company & Directors' Information:- T K CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U74210WB1985PTC039731

Company & Directors' Information:- A P S CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45201BR1986PTC002374

Company & Directors' Information:- B P CONSTRUCTION CO PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U95201WB1955PTC022488

Company & Directors' Information:- A R CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U45201CH1988PTC008459

Company & Directors' Information:- A S G CONSTRUCTION CO. PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U70200DL1996PTC075278

Company & Directors' Information:- W & C CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45209PN2006PTC129169

Company & Directors' Information:- M K Y HOUSING PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45400TG2008PTC059752

Company & Directors' Information:- G M R HOUSING PRIVATE LIMITED [Under Process of Striking Off] CIN = U70102TG2002PTC038792

Company & Directors' Information:- T & A CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45400DL2007PTC164939

Company & Directors' Information:- S R S S CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U45400DL2008PTC176504

Company & Directors' Information:- B C R CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U99999MH1979PTC021005

Company & Directors' Information:- THE HOUSING CORPORATION LIMITED [Dissolved] CIN = U99999MH1946PLC010719

    Misc. Bench No. 7787 of 2008

    Decided On, 07 August 2020

    At, High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad Lucknow Bench

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VED PRAKASH VAISH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JOHARI

    For the Petitioner: Dipak Seth, I.P. Singh, Advocates. For the Respondent: C.S.C., Ram Raj, Advocate.



Judgment Text


Ved Prakash Vaish, J.,

1. By way of the present petition, the petitioner seeks quashing of the impugned order of recovery dated 19th July, 2008 passed by respondent No.2, whereby the respondent No.2 directed the petitioner to deposit external development charges amounting to Rs.2,61,84,771.00/- till 31st July, 2008 at the rate of Rs.400/- per square meter. The petitioner also seeks quashing of the order dated 30th September, 2007 and Resolution dated 3rd June, 2006; and for a direction to the respondents to approve the project Talpat Manchitra of Greenwood City ignoring the Resolution dated 3rd June, 2006.

2. Briefly, the facts as stated in the petition are that the petitioner preferred an application under Section 14 of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act') regarding approval of their project, namely, Talpat Manchitra of Greenwood City situated at By-pass Chauraha, Bagpat Road, Meerut. The respondent No.2 informed the petitioner that Talpat Manchitra/ Maps relating to the plots of Greenwood City had been approved with certain conditions as mentioned in their letter dated 26th September, 2007.

3. It is stated that before 1997, there was no provision under the said Act for the imposition of any development fee and only provision for collection and levy cess under the said Act was Section 33, under which the Authority has to provide an amenity and carry out development, and thereafter to recover the cost of the same from the owner. It is also stated that Section 35 of the said Act provides that if under the opinion of the Authority as a consequence to any development scheme having been executed by the Authority in any development area, the value of any property in that area, which has been benefited by the development has increased or will increase, the Authority was entitled to levy upon the owner of the property a betterment charge in respect of increase of the value of the property resulting from the execution of the development.

4. It is further stated that in the year 1997 vide U.P. Act No.3 of 1997, the said Act, was amended by inserting new Section as 2 (ggg), 15 (2A) and proviso 3 to Section 15 (3). Section 2 (ggg) defines the term 'Development fee'. While referring to Section 15 (2A) of the said Act which has been inserted by U.P. Act No.3 of 1997, as Section 3, providing that the Authority shall be entitled to levy development fees, mutation charges, staking fees, and water fees in such manner and at such rates as may be prescribed, it is stated that in the absence of any prescribed Rules, Regulations or bye laws the Authority cannot impose any development fees. Since no Rules, Regulations or bye laws have been framed by the State Government or the Meerut Development Authority, Meerut (hereinafter referred to as 'MDA') till date, therefore, the levy of development fees is illegal.

5. It is further stated that the State Government exercises the power of supervision and control over the Authority under the provisions of Section 41 of the said Act, 1973. Therefore, the power to prescribe development fees can only be exercised by the State Government through its rule making power and not by the Development Authority by its Regulation of bye laws making power and if the above interpretation is not agreed to them it will result in a serious abuse and misuse of powers and perpetuation of fraud on statute.

6. Relying on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of 'Virendra Kumar Tyagi vs. GDA', reported in 2006 (62) A.L.R. 106, wherein while interpreting the provisions of Section 15 (2A), Section 41, Section 57 of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act read with Section 4 (33a) of the U.P. General Clauses Act, 1904, this Court has come to the conclusion that the word 'Prescribed' means prescribed by the rules under the Act and if no such rules have been framed no charge under Section 15(2A) can be levied, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that in the present case also since no rules have been framed for charging development fees; therefore, any charge and development fees by respondent No.2, i.e., the MDA is illegal.

7. It is also stated that Section 2(ggg) of the said Act, 1973 clearly shows that the development fees can only be imposed by the construction of five things i.e., (i) road, (ii) drainage, (iii) sewer line, (iv) electric supply and (v) water supply lines. It is contended that exercising the powers under Section 41(1) of the said Act, 1973, the State Government vide Government Order No.3157/9-Aa-1-1998 dated 19th August, 1998 directed all the Development Authorities that fee received from the lay out plan shall be used for the development to be done in the same colony for the services like drainage, road, sewer line, electric and water supply for the development area outside the scheme of Development Authority.

8. It is further stated that a perusal of the aforesaid Government Order No.3157/9-Aa-1-1998 dated 19th August, 1998 clearly shows that the development fees can be recovered only for the purpose of the colony for which the development fees has been recovered and not for any other colony or any other place. It is contended that the development charges can be claimed only as a fees for the services rendered and not as a tax, and therefore, for the said development charges the Development Authority is bound to provide services to the same colony or the plot for which the development charges are being taken and if the said colony or the plot alone is not benefited by the said development charges received from them then it shall become a tax which is not permissible under the eyes of law.

9. It is also stated that up to the month of June, 2006, the respondent No.2, was charging development fees at a flat rate of Rs.125/- per square meter of the plotted area of a particular colony which was also arbitrary in as much as the fee cannot be charged on ad valorem basis. On 03rd June, 2006, the Vice Chairman of MDA wrote a note to the Chairman, MDA/ Commissioner Meerut Divison, Meerut informing him that the development fees of Rs.125/- per square meter for residential plots and Rs.150/- per square meter for commercial plots, which was fixed by the MDA in its meeting dated 26th March, 2003 vide Resolution No.7 was not sufficient. According to the Vice Chairman in the 74th meeting of the MDA in item No.4 it was proposed that the development fees be taken at the rate of Rs.400/- per square meter for whole area of the land, but the proceedings of the said minutes are not available and, therefore, sought approval to impose Rs.400/- per square meter for whole of the plan area as the external development charges. On the same day, the Chairman, MDA signed the proposal and since then the MDA has illegally and in an unauthorized manner started claiming external development charges on the whole land area of the colony at the rate of Rs.400/- per square meter.

10. It is further stated by the petitioner that whenever a development submits a lay out plan for approval of the colony then almost 50 percent area of the land on which he intends to develop a colony, is utilized for the purpose of road, parks, community service areas and other amenities and only 50 percent of the land area is used for the purpose of plotting or construction of the houses. As such the effect of the said noting of the Vice Chairman and its approval by respondent No.3 means to almost 6 time increase in the extra development charges since the extra development charges of the colony if calculated at the rate of Rs.400/- per square meter for whole area of the land shall come out to be almost Rs.800/- per square meter of the plotted area.

11. The petitioner further stated that the aforesaid proposal was kept in the board meeting dated 29th June, 2006 of the MDA as item No.13 but the same was not approved by the MDA. Therefore, the increase in the extra development charges could not be given effect in any manner. As per Section 2 (dd) of the said Act, the Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Development Authority are only the officers of the Development Authority, while the Development Authority has been defined under Section 4 of the said Act, 1973. Section 4(1) of the said Act, 1973 provides that the State Government may, by notification in the gazette, constitute for the purposes of the said Act and Authority to be called the 'Development Authority' for any development area. Section 4(2) of the said Act, 1973 provides that the said Development Authority shall be body corporate by the name having perpetual succession and common seal with power to acquire, hold and dispose of property, and to contract and shall by the said name sue and sued. As per Section 4(3) of the said Act, 1973 the Development Authority consists of 15 members including Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Development Authority concerned.

12. It is also stated on behalf of the petitioner that Section 4 of the said Act, 1973 clearly shows that the Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Development Authority have no right or Authority to impose any such fees, such as development fees or to change the rate of development fees without the approval of the Development Authority and that to on a rational basis. The basis of said Rs.400/- per square meter of the plotted area has been taken from a letter dated 29th December, 2005 wherein the State Government has informed all the Development Authorities that for the purpose of issuing licences to the developers, and allotment of land, after its acquisition by the Development Authority to the developers and for the development of the said land by the Development Authority, the development fees can be levied at the rate of Rs.385/- per square meter of the land area which has to be rounded as Rs.400/- per square meter of the land area, which had been calculated on the basis of data of Lucknow and has to be amended by the individual Development Authorities as per then dates. The said letter dated 29th December, 2005 applies where the development of the roads, drainage, electric supply and water supply is undertaken by the Development Authority itself, after its acquisition by the Development Authority and not by the builder and the builder has only to carve out the colony and to sell off the plots or houses of the said colony to the intending buyers..

13. The petitioner further stated that in the case of the private developers who are not taking any land from the Development Authority and who have their own land and/ or purchasing the land from the existing land holders then all the development in the colony, including roads, drainage, electric supply and water supply lines are undertaken by the developers itself and not by the Development Authority and only on this condition that all these amenities and development shall be provided by the developer, the plan of the developer is passed.

14. Vide letter dated 22nd September, 2007, respondent No.2 directed the petitioner to deposit an amount of Rs.6,57,14,000.00/- as external development charge at the rate of Rs.400/- per square meter for the Talpat Area measuring 1,64,285/- square meter. It is stated that respondent No.2, has not provided the land after its acquisition and development. Therefore, no order based on letter dated 29th December, 2005 could be passed by the respondents.

15. The petitioner further stated that at the earlier existing rates of the external development charges i.e., Rs.125/- per square meter, it has deposited an amount of Rs.75,00,000.00/- on 31.01.2008. However, vide impugned order dated 19th July, 2008, respondent No.2 directed to deposit the external development charges amounting to Rs.2,61,84,771.00/- till 31.07.2008 at the rate of Rs.400/- per square meter otherwise respondent No.2 will proceed for further action.

16. It is argued on behalf of the petitioner that as per Government Order dated 19th August, 1998, no amount has been spent for the development of said colony from the external development charges collected by the MDA and whole of the said amount is surplus amount with the MDA. The counsel for the petitioner, therefore, submitted that the external development fees of Rs.400/- per square meter as imposed by respondent No.2 is absolutely illegal and against the provisions of the said Act. Therefore, the same is liable to be struck down to meet the ends of justice.

17. It is further argued on behalf of the petitioner that respondents No.2 and 3, in an illegal, arbitrary, irrational and whimsical manner passed the impugned Resolution dated 03rd June, 2006, whereby they raised the amount of external development fees from Rs.125/- per square meter to Rs.400/- per square meter against the provisions of law, which is based on extraneous considerations, and bereft of the material on record. Moreover, said Resolution dated 03rd June, 2006 had not been approved by the Development Authority itself, but they are adamant to impose an amount of amount of Rs.400/- per square meter as external development fees against petitioner. Therefore, the said Resolution dated 03rd June, 2006 passed by respondents No.2 and 3 is liable to be set aside.

18. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the act of the opposite parties are out rightly illegal, arbitrary and unlawful and same is not tenable in the eye of law and justice. The impugned action of the respondents fails the test of judiciousness and does not avoid arbitrary and capricious actions and the impugned acts of the opposite parties cannot be allowed to operate.

19. It is further argued that the action on the part of opposite parties are hitting the statutory provisions, arbitrary, unreasonable and illegal, and in violation of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India, hence the impugned Resolution dated 03.06.2006, and order dated 19th July, 2008 passed by respondents No.2 and 3 are liable to be set aside.

20. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that a fee is levied essentially for services rendered and as such there is an element of quid-pro-quo between a person to pay fee and the public authority which imposes it. However, in the instant case, the MDA, in fact, provided no services. There is no bye laws, rule and regulation or law under the provision of the said Act, 1973 for imposition or realizing any development fee/betterment fee on ad valorem basis. It is further contended that the imposition of development fee/betterment fee amounts to tax for which no rules or regulations have been framed so far.

21. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that while prescribing fee the respondents have levied fees on ad valorem basis which is a circumstance to show that the impugned levy is in the nature of tax and not in the nature of fee. Moreover, the quantum of levy indicates that it is is a tax and not a fee. Further, the quantum of fee is disproportionate to the so called services which is one more circumstance showing arbitrariness in the levy of such imposition. Hence, the levy of fee is irrational, arbitrary, and discriminatory as the classification is not based on intelligible differentia and the differentia has no reasonable nexus with the object of legislation.

22. It is argued on behalf of the petitioner that the respondents were charging development charges at the rate of Rs.125/- prior to 30.09.2007 which has not been denied by the respondent/MDA. However, through the impugned order dated 19.07.2008 the respondent/MDA is trying to charge Rs.400/- per square meter as development fee whereas the Government Order dated 30.09.2007 prescribes the external development fee of Rs.288/- per square meter is chargeable. It is further contended that the MDA has tried to impress that the rate of external development charges is Rs.400/- where as the said Government Order dated 29.12.2005 is for integrated township wherein the minimum area of the land should not be less than 50 acres i.e., 2,02,343/- square meters. Whereas the land of the petitioner for development is only 1,64,285/- square meter.

23. It is further argued on behalf of the petitioner that the Government Order dated 30.09.2007 prescribing development fee of Rs.288/- came almost two years after Government Order/integrated township policy dated 29.12.2005, hence even if rate of Rs.125/- is unacceptable, it cannot be more than Rs.288/- as external development charge and there arises no question of Rs.400/- as the external development charge.

24. Learned counsel further stated that the concept of quid-pro-quo is fully acceptable in the present case which means that the fee paid by the petitioner should only be utilized against the services rendered by the respondent/MDA and once the fee was deposited it was MDA's obligation to have developed the external area for the purpose of the petitioner colony as prescribed under Section 2(ggg) of the said Act. Reliance is placed by the petitioner heavily on the judgment in the case of 'Calcutta Municipal Corporation vs. Shrey Mercantile', (2005) 4 SCC 245.

25. The petition is strongly opposed by the respondents. It is stated that the petitioner has concealed material facts and played a fraud in approaching this Court; consequently, the petitioner is not entitled for grant of any equitable relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

26. It is stated by the respondents that it is a fundamental principle of law that a person invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court must come with clean hands and must make a full and complete disclosure of facts to this Court. The petitioner has suppressed the foundational facts from this Court which are required to be pleaded enabling this Court to scrutinize the nature and the content of the right alleged to have been violated by the respondents.

27. It is further stated that the petitioner with mala fide intentions and with ulterior motives, suppressed the material facts from this Court that prior to filing of the aforesaid with petition, the petitioner had agreed to pay development charges at the rate of Rs.400/- per square meter. A material fact of execution of the agreement deed dated 25.09.2007 has also been suppressed from this Hon'ble Court. The petitioner also suppressed the material fact that on 26.09.2007 at the time of issuing the sanctioned plan submitted by the petitioner under Section 15of the said Act, the petitioner had paid 40 percent of the total development charges, at the rate of Rs.400/- per square meter, to the answering respondents.

28. The petitioner further did not disclose the fact that after it had deposited Rs.2,62,85,600.00/-, that is, 40 percent of the development charges at the rate of Rs.400/- per square meter, the rest 60 percent of the development charges were required to be deposited by the petitioner as per the letter dated 31.10.2007 that too in three installments. However, the petitioner did not comply the aforementioned letter dated 31.10.2007 and did not deposit the agreed and admitted development charges at the rate of Rs.400/- per square meter. It is stated that on 31.01.2008 the petitioner deposited only Rs.75,00,000.00/- (Rupees Seventy Five Lacs only), and thereafter, did not deposit any amount and has approached this Court by filing the aforesaid writ petition, suppressing the material facts which are imperative fr the purposes of the aforesaid writ petition. The writ jurisdiction has been invoked by the petitioner after it had committed default. The petitioner in order to overcome his own shortcoming has filed the aforesaid writ petition, in effect seeking amendment of a concluded contract.

29. While relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of 'K.D. Sharma vs. Steel Authority of India and others', reported in (2008) 12 SCC 481 wherein it was held that if there is no candid disclosure of relevant and material facts or the petitioner is guilty of misleading the court, his petition may be dismissed at the threshold without considering the merits of the claim, learned counsel for the respondents contended that the petitioner has not only played fraud upon this Hon'ble Court by suppressing material facts from the Court but has also tried to mislead this Court.

30. It is further stated that 'Development Fee' means the fee levied upon a person or body under Section 15 of the Act for construction of road, drain, sewer line, electric supply and water supply lines in the development area by the Development Authority. The 'Development Area' means any area declared to be development area under Section 3 of the Act. It is therefore, clear that the development of the area is not confined to the particular place or area but development as a whole of the development area.

31. It is pointed out by learned counsel for the respondents that the Vice Chairman, MDA had sent a letter dated 30.06.2006 to the State Government requesting therein that levy of Rs.400/- per square meter towards development charges may be approved. In fact Rs.434/- per square meter was calculated on the basis of Meerut database. The State Government vide its order dated 17.07.2006 had approved the development charges, as requested. It is further stated that the Government Order dated 19.08.1998 is nothing but a clarification of para-5 Kha of the office order dated 15.01.1998. The said Government Order is applicable to the urban area outside the scheme area of the development area. The said Government Order is, therefore, not applicable and available to the case of the petitioner.

32. Learned counsel for the respondents contended that the proposal to increase development charges from Rs.125/- per square meter to Rs.400/- per square meter was made in accordance with said Act and the same was kept in the MDA Board's meeting dated 04.08.2007. The Board had taken decision to increase the development charges and the same was accordingly resolved as per Resolution No.11.

33. Parameters for charging development fee have been laid down by the State Government and the various heads under which the amount is calculated has also been determined by the Sate Government. In general, costing of the development charges, the State Government had after adding the expenditure incurred in laying of roads, sewer, electricity, flyovers and other amenities, laid down Rs.400/- per square meter as development charges even while the respondents under the same headings incur expenditure of Rs.434/- per square meter, sanction of the same was not given by the State Government and the answering respondents have been directed to charge Rs.400/- only per square meter which not only the petitioner be it an individual body or firm is paying to the Development Authority. The decision taken by the State Government to charge Rs.400/- per square meter towards development charges and adopted by the answering respondents is a policy decision and is not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is further stated that the estimated project cost of the development area which was duly advertised at the time of inviting applications for development of lands and which includes flyovers, bus terminal, metro rail and the like.

34. The respondents further stated that they are required to develop entire development area as covered under Section 3 of the Act and the insistence of he petitioner to develop around and adjoining the petitioner's land is per se, untenable and does not merit consideration. By filing of the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner cannot seek amendment in the terms of the agreement entered into between the petitioner and the answering respondents.

35. It was also pointed out by the respondents that Ghaziabad Development Authority, Ghaziabad is charging Rs.1,947/- per square meter towards development charges. Similarly, Lucknow Development Authority, Lucknow is charging Rs.830/- per square meter towards development charges. Moradabad Development Authority, Moradabad is charging Rs.400/- per square meter towards development charges. Kanpur Development Authority, Kanpur is charging Rs.746/- per square meter towards development charges. It is further stated that none of the ground taken by the petitioner are tenable in the eyes of law and the writ petition deserves dismissal.

36. We have heard Sri Dipak Seth, learned counsel for the petitioner along with Sri Ratnesh Chandra, Advocate and Sri V.P. Nag, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.1 as well as Sri Ram Raj, learned counsel for respondent No.3 and perused the pleadings and the documents on record.

37. The grievance of the petitioner is with regard to the charging of external development charges at the enhanced rate of Rs.400/- per square meter by the Meerut Development Authority without there being any rules framed with the approval of the State Government. The petitioner has challenged the said external charges as unlawful, arbitrary being contrary to the Government Order dated 19th August, 1998 as well as the Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973.

38. The Meerut Development Authority (MDA) has been constituted by the State Government under Section 4 of the said Act. It has been enjoined to undertake the development of the development area including providing amenities or carrying out engineering operations or providing means of access as envisaged under the Act or other amenities that may be specified by a notification issued by the State Government as part of development plans undertaking under the Act.

39. Before we proceed to deal with the matter, it is appropriate to refer to and extract some of the relevant provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Planning and Development Act, 1973. Section 2(ggg) of the said Act talks about development fee. The said Section reads as under:

"2(ggg): 'development fee' means the fee levied upon a person of body under Section 15 for construction of road, crain, sewer line, electric supply, and water supply lines in the development area by the Development Authority"

40. Section 15(2A) of the said Act provides for levy of development fee etc. by the Authority. The said Section is reproduced as under:

"15 (2A) The Authority shall be entitled to levy development fees, mutation charges, stacking fees, and water fees in such manner and at such rates as may be prescribed."

41. The proviso 3 to the Section 15(3) of the Act provides that before granting permission, referred to in Section 14, the Vice Chairman may get the fees and charges levied under Sub-Section 2A deposited.

42. Under the provisions of Section 35 of the Act, the State Government is empowered to make rules for carrying out the purposes of the aforesaid Act, for all or any of the following matters:

(a) The levy of fee on a memorandum of appeal under Sub-Section (5) of Section 15 or under Sub-Section (2) of Section 27.

(b) The procedure to be followed by the Chairman in determination of betterment charges, and the powers that it shall have for the purpose.

(c) Any other matter which has to be or may be prescribed by the rules.

43. Sections 56 and 57 of the Act empower an Authority to make regulation and bye-laws for the administration of the affairs of the authority, with the previous approval of the State Government. The general power is available under Section 56 for the Authority to make regulations for the administration of the affairs of the Authority.

44. The word 'Prescribed' under Section 15 (2A) of the Act only refers to prescribe by rules. This is also clear from Section 4 (33A) of the U.P. General Clauses Act, 1904, which states as under:

"'Prescribed' shall mean prescribed by rules under the Act in which the work occur."

The word 'Prescribed' under Section 15 (2A) of the Act only refers to prescribe by rules. It is also clear from the interpretation of Section 55 (2) of the Act which prescribes that even the fee to be levied on the memorandum of appeal, as well as procedure to be followed by the Chairman in determination of betterment charges, and the powers that it shall have for the purpose shall be prescribed by rules only, which will be framed by the State Government.

45. In terms of Section 14 of the Act, after the declaration of any area as development area under Section 3, no development of land shall be undertaken or carried out constituted in the area by any person or body unless permission for such development has been obtained in writing from the concerned Development Authority in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Therefore, before any person or a body undertakes development in accordance with the plan, he is enjoined to obtain in writing from the Vice Chairman sanction for development in accordance with the provisions of the Act.

46. Section 15 of the Act provides provision for application for permission to develop the area. Sub-Section 2-A of Section 15 of the Act provides that the Development Authority shall be entitled to levy development fees, mutation charges, staking fees and water fees in such manner and at such rate as may be prescribed. The proviso to Sub-Section 3 of Section 15 of the Act provides that before granting permission to develop, referred in Section 14 of the Act, the Vice Chairman may get the fees and the charges levied under Sub-Section 2-A deposited.

47. Section 41 of the Act provides control by State Government and the said Section is reproduced hereunder:

"41. Control by State Government:

(1) The (Authority), the Chairman or the (Vice Chairman) shall carry out such directions as may be issued to it from time to time by the Sate Government for the efficient administration of this Act..........."

48. The petitioner duly accepted the terms sent by the Authority vide letter dated 22.09.2007 thereafter the Authority sanctioned the Talpat Manchitra project of the petitioner on 26.09.2007.

49. Section 38-A of the Act provides for levy of development charges on private developer. The said Section reads as under:

"38-A. Power of Authority to levy and use conversion charges and city development charge:

(1) .....

(2) Where in any development area a licence has been granted to private developer for assembly and development of land, the Authority shall be entitled to levy city development charge on the private developer of such land and in such manner and at such rates as may be prescribed."

50. The State Government on 21.05.2005 directed the development authorities to follow the Government Order dated 29.12.2005 in respect of realization of development charges wherein policy of realization of development charge/fee was categorically mentioned as Rs.400/- per square meter. A letter dated 30.06.2006 was sent by the Authority to the State Government seeking direction for realizing external development charges at the rate of Rs.400/- per square meter. The said letter was replied to the Authority by the State Government on 17.07.2006 informing that the development charges be realized as per Government Policy dated 29.12.2005. It is further noticed that a large number of developers/institutions situated in the petitioner's vicinity were paying regularly development charges at the rate of Rs.400/- per square meter.

51. It is also not disputed by the petitioner that it has deposited 40 percent of the total external development charges with the MDA at the rate of Rs.400/- per square meter. The petitioner thereafter questioned the rate of development charges and also the power of the Authority to charge such development charges.

52. The Supreme Court in the matter of 'State of U.P. and others vs. Malti Kaul (Smt.) and another', reported as (1996) 10 SCC 425 has held that Development Authority as a condition for sanction of plan for a development area can levy development charges/fee. The Supreme Court in this case while considering the various provisions of the Act has held as under:

"11. A reading of these provisions would clearly indicate that in a development area when an owner or body or a department of the government undertakes to develop the land, two options are open to the development authority, namely, either it may itself undertake to provide amenities or other means of access, engineering corporations as provided under the Act or as a condition to grant sanction, it can call upon the person who undertakes development or the body of the developers who undertake development to deposit the amount required for such development or providing amenities etc.

12. In the light of direction (vii) of the directions issued in the regulations the owner or the body or the developer is enjoined either to deposit the amount demanded or give bank guarantee or mortgage the property in favour of the development authority so that it could secure sufficient security in advance for overseeing the development including providing amenities as a scheme of the development as per the sanction. It is settled law that levy of fee is a compulsory exaction for services rendered as quid Pro quo. It is seen that the development authority is enjoined under the Act to undertake planned development of the development area in accordance with the provisions of the Act. When it undertakes such a development it carries out the development as per the plan either itself or through any person or body which undertakes to develop the land in accordance with the sanction plan in which case necessary conditions to safeguard providing the amenities are required to be secured.

13. Thus considered, we hold that the Act specifically gives such a power. It is true that under Article 265 of the Constitution no tax can be levied without any authority of law. There is no quarrel on the proposition of law. In this case, from a reading of the aforesaid provisions it clear that the statute, instead of prescribing the rate of developmental charges itself, has given power to the rule-making authority to regulate the collection of and payment for development fee. It is seen that under the direction which is not inconsistent with the provisions of the Act, it indicate the method and the manner in which the collection is to be secured so as to see that the area is developed in a planned manner as per the sanctions given by the competent authority. The High Court, therefore, was clearly in error in holding that there is no provision under the Act or the Rules to levy the development fee."

53. The aforesaid decision of he Supreme court was also relied upon by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of 'Smt. Nisha Kumari vs. State of U.P. and others', reported as 2014 (6) ADJ 20 (DB).

54. We have perused the judgment relied upon by the petitioner in the case of Calcutta Municipal Corporation's case (supra), and we are of the view that this judgment is of no help to the petitioner and is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. In that case the issue before the Supreme Court was whether the imposition for the process of change of the name of the owner in the assessment of the Corporation was in the nature of "a fee" or "tax". While dismissing the petition of the Municipal Corporation, the Supreme Court held that the entire Part IV of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act deals not only with the levy of taxes, it also deals with assessments, valuation, collection and recovery of taxes. The entire machinery for filing of returns, objections and inspection of records and properties comes under the part which deals with the taxation. The maintenance of assessment books, annual report, valuation reports, etc. all come under the part which deals with taxation. Section 183 which deals with notice of transfer also comes under the same part. It is true that under Section 183 (5), fees are payable for mutation as may be prescribed under the regulations, still the primary object of such a charge is to augment the revenue and the levy of such a charge cannot be treated to be a part of the regulatory measure. The Supreme Court further held that under the Regulations, the Corporation while prescribing fees has levied fees on ad valorem basis which is one more circumstance to show that the impugned levy is in the nature of tax and not in the nature of a fee. Moreover, the quantum of levy indicates that it is a tax and not a fee. The analysis of the various provisions of the Act and the impugned Regulations shows that the impugned levy is in exercise of power of taxation under the said Act to augment the revenues primarily and not as a part of regulatory measure. However, in the case in hand the petitioner is a developer who had submitted an application under Section 14 of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 regarding approval of their project, namely, Talpat Manchitra of Greenwood City situated at By-pass Chauraha, Baghpat Road, Meerut. Vide letter dated 26th September, 2007, the petitioner was informed by the Authority (MDA) that Talpat Manchitra/Maps relating to the plots of Greenwood City had been approved with certain conditions as mentioned in the said letter. The Supreme Court in the case of Malti Kaul's case (supra) has clearly held that the development fee can be levied by the Development Authority as a condition for sanction of plan in a development area when an owner or body or a department of Government undertakes to develop the area. Levy of such fee is a compulsory exaction for services rendered as quid prop quo for which Authority of Law provided under he Act. It was further held that though express mention is not made either in Section 33 or Section 41; but when Section 14 and Section 56 (2) are read together, it gives right and power to the sanctioning authority to impose a condition to the grant of sanction for execution of the plan in a development area by imposing the condition of either payment in advance towards the cost of the amenities or means of access etc. or give bank guarantee or mortgage the plot which is to be developed etc.

55. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Nisha Kumari (supra) has, inter alia, considered the following issues:

"(i) Whether for levying the development fee and other fees as provided for in Section 15 (2-A) of 1973 Act, the rules are required to be framed by the State Government under Section 55 of the Act and without there being rules framed, no fee as mentioned in Section 15 (2-A) can be levied?

(ii) Whether the Development Authorities can charge development fee under the direction issued under U.P. (Regulation of Building Operation) Act, 1958 as held by Apex Court in State of U.P. v. Malti Kaul 1996 (10) SCC 425?

(iii) Whether for levying development fee, the development authorities have to carry out the development as contemplated under Section 2(ggg) of 1973 Act before hand."

56. While deciding the above issues, the Division Bench of this Court considered the relevant provisions of the Act and held as under:

"30. The first issue is as to whether the Development Authorities are entitled to charge development fee without framing Rules under Section 55 of 1973 Act. The submission, which has been emphasized by the learned counsel for the petitioners, is that no development charge can be levied in an area, which is already developed, or in an area where development authority is not carrying out any development activity.

31. For appreciating the above issue, it is necessary to note the relevant legislation governing the field. Prior to the enforcement of Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the 1973 Act), there was another enactment, namely, the U.P. (Regulations of Building Operations) Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the 1958 Act), which Act was enacted to provide for the regulation of building operations in Uttar Pradesh. Section 2 of 1958 Act contains various definitions. It is relevant to note that the definition of development as now under 1973 Act is the same as was in 1958 Act. Section 2(e) of 1958 Act was as follows:

"2(e). 'development' with its grammatical variations and cognate expression, means the carrying out of building, engineering, mining or other operations, in, on, over or under land or the making or any material change in any building or land;"

32. Under Section 3 of 1958 Act, the State Government was authorized to declare an area as regulated area with a view to prevent bad laying out of land, haphazard erection of buildings or growth of sub-standard colonies or with a view to carry out development and expansion of that area according to the proper planning. Section 4 defined the Controlling Authority. Section 5 provided for power to the State Government to issue directions in respect of regulated area by notification in Official Gazette. Section 5 (a) provided for master plan for the regulated area and Section 6 provided that no person shall undertake or carry out the development on any site in any regulated area except in accordance with the permission of the Prescribed Authority which provision is akin to Section 14 of 1973 Act. Section 7 provided for application for permission which provision is akin to Section 15 of 1973 Act. Section 19 provided for the power of the State Government to make Rules to carry out the purpose of the Act. In exercise of power under Section 14 of 1958 Act, the Government has issued directions for all regulated area, namely, the U.P. (Regulation of Building Operation) Directions, 1960. Direction no. 8 related to sanctioning of plans and statement. Direction no. 8 (vii) is relevant for the present case which reads as follows:

"The applicant has entered into an agreement with the local body concerned for the development of the land and for provision of other amenities and has either deposited the full estimated cost of the development and provision of other amenities with that local body in advance or has given to it a bank guarantee equivalent to such cost; or has entered into an agreement with that local body, providing that the full cost thereof may be realised by it out of the sale-proceeds of the plots that may be sold by the applicant:"

33. From the provision as noted above, it is clear that the Prescribed Authority before sanctioning the plan could have directed the applicant to deposit full estimated cost of development or give a bank guarantee equivalent to such cost. Thus, the power to deposit the cost for carrying out development could have been taken from the applicant praying for sanction of the plan as per the statutory scheme of 1958.

34. U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 as enacted provided for development of certain area of land of Uttar Pradesh according to plan and for matters ancillary thereto. The definition clause in Section 2 has already been noted. Section 15 (2) provides that every application as provided in Section 15 (1) shall be accompanied by such fee as may be prescribed by such rules.

35. By the Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development (Amendment) Act, 1997 (U.P. Act No. 3 of 1997) after clause (gg), clause (ggg) has been inserted defining development fee. In section 15, after sub-section (2), sub-section (2-A) has been inserted providing that the Authority shall be entitled to levy development fees, mutation charges, stacking fees and water fees in such manner and at such rate as may be prescribed. In sub-section (3), a proviso was added to the following effect:

"Provided also that before granting permission, referred to in Section 14 the Vice-Chairman may get the fees and the charges levied under Sub-section (2-A) deposited."

Thus, prior to U.P. Act No. 3 of 1997 the Act did not contain any provision for a development fee, the mutation charges, stacking fees and water fees. No rules were framed by the State providing for charging of development fee etc.

36. The writ petitions were filed in this Court challenging the levy of development fee, malva fee, water charges by Development Authorities constituted under the 1973 Act. Before the Division bench of this Court, in Malti Kaul and another v. Allahabad Development Authority and another, 1996 All LJ 1, it was contended that the Development Authorities are not entitled to charge development fee and other fees. The Government Order dated 12.8.1986 by which Government authorised to charge of development fee was also under challenge. The Division Bench of this Court after considering Sections 14, 15, 33, 35 & 41 held that the Development Authority could not charge any development fee. For protecting the Government Order dated 12.8.1986, learned counsel for the petitioners in the said case relied on Section 41 which argument was repelled by the Division Bench by following observations in paragraph 7-A and 8 which are quoted below.

"7A. Learned counsel for the Development Authorities have, however, tried to justify the levy of development fee on the basis of the Government order dated 12.8.1986, copy of which has been filed as Annexure I to the supplementary-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents. Although there is no provision under the Act, authorising the Government to direct the Development Authorities to impose such a fee; but the order has been defended by the learned counsel on two grounds, namely, (i) executive power of the State; and (ii) Section 41(1) of the Act. These contentions cannot be accepted. Although, executive power of the State is coextensive with its legislative powers; but Article 265 of the Constitution prohibits the levy of tax, which includes the fee, except by authority of law. Law means legislative enactment and sub-ordinate legislation. The State in exercise of its executive power cannot impose any tax or fee in the absence of specific statutory provision authorising such a charge. In this connection, reference may be made to Harivansh Lal Mehra v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1971 SC 1130, Bimal Chandra Banerjee Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority v. Sharadkumar Jayantikumar Pasawalla, AIR 1992 SC 2038 (supra).

8. Section 41 of the Act does not confer any such power on the Government to issue direction to the Development Authorities for imposing development fee. Under this Section Government can issue direction "for the efficient administration of this Act" and such directions are to be carried out by the Development Authority, its Chairman and Vice-Chairman. By this section the Government is authorised to issue directions of administrative nature to the Development Authorities. The Government cannot derive any power from Section 41 for directing the Authorities to levy the development fee. Supreme Court in Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority v. Sharadkumar Jayantikumar Pasawalla, AIR 1992 SC 2038 (supra), wherein the levy of development fee was challenged has laid down that in the absence of any express statutory provision, it is not open to any authority to impose any such fee. The plea of implied power to levy such a charge was also rejected. The imposition of development fee as such is without authority of law and, therefore, cannot be sustained."

37. The writ petitions were allowed by the Division Bench of this Court. The levy of development fee and Government Order dated 12.8.1986, so far it has authorised the Development Authority to impose and collect development fee were quashed. Paragraph 13 of the Judgement of the Division Bench is reproduced hereunder:

"These writ petitions are partly allowed. The levy of development fee and the Government order dated 12-8-1986, so far as it has authorised the Development Authority to impose and collect development fee are quashed. The levy of Malva fee and water charges are also quashed. The respondents, Development Authorities are directed to determine the imposition of Malva fee and water charges afresh after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioners. As regards the composition fee, the writ petitions are dismissed. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs."

38. State of U.P. And Development Authority filed special leave petition in Apex Court challenging the aforesaid Judgment of the Division Bench dated 21.4.1995 in Malti Kaul's case (supra). The Apex Court, vide its Judgment 21.8.1996 in State of U.P. And others v. Malti Kaul (Smt) and another, 1996 (10) SCC 425, had allowed the said appeal. The Apex Court held that the Authority granting sanction of execution of plan in a developed area may impose a condition for payment towards the cost of amenities. After noticing the scheme of 1973 Act and Section 59 of 1973 Act and 1958 Act the Apex Court held that the Development Authority can demand amount for carrying out development and view taken by the High Court was not correct. It is useful to quote paragraph 10, 11, 12 and 13, which are as under:

"10. By operation of Section 59, any orders issued under the predecessor Acts which are not inconsistent with the provisions of the Act shall continue to be in operation. Under Section 14 of the Uttar Pradesh (Regulation of Building Operations) Act, 1958 (predecessor Act) which is pari materia with Section 14 of the Act, regulations have been made which are not inconsistent with that of Section 8 and in that behalf provides for sanction of plans and statements. Direction (vii) provides that the applicant has entered into an agreement with the local body concerned for the development of the land and for provision of other amenities and has either deposited the full estimated cost of the development and provision of other amenities with that local body in advance or has given to it a bank guarantee equivalent to such cost, or has entered into an agreement with the local body, providing that the full cost thereof may be realised by it out of the sale proceeds of the plots that may be sold by the applicant; provided that any such agreement between the applicant and the local body may provide for any part of the development and provision of other amenities being carried out by the applicant himself; however, that in respect of any such part he shall give adequate security to the local body to secure that he shall carry out such part of the development and provide other amenities in accordance with the approved standards and specifications to the satisfaction of the controlling authority. Under the second proviso also, power has been given to secure mortgage of the entire land to be developed in favour of the local authority as a condition for granting sanction with an agreement for providing the amenities and if the plots are to be released for sale by the mortgagor then the amount has to be paid as prescribed thereunder, the details of which are not material for the purpose of this case.

11. A reading of these provisions would clearly indicate that in a development area when an owner or body or a department of the Government undertakes to develop the land, two options are open to the development authority, namely, either it may itself undertake to provide amenities or other means of access, engineering corporations as provided under the Act or as a condition to grant sanction, it can call upon the person who undertakes development or the body of the developers who undertake development to deposit the amount required for such development or providing amenities etc.

12. In the light of direction (vii) of the directions issued in the regulations the owner or the body or the developer is enjoined either to deposit the amount demanded or give bank guarantee or mortgage the property in favour of the development authority so that it could secure sufficient security in advance for overseeing the development including providing amenities as a scheme of the development as per the sanction. It is settled law that levy of fee is a compulsory exaction for services rendered as quid pro quo. It is seen that the development authority is enjoined under the Act to undertake planned development of the development area in accordance with the provisions of the Act. When it undertakes such a development it carries out the development as per the plan either itself or through any person or body which undertakes to develop the land in accordance with the sanction plan in which case necessary conditions to safeguard providing the amenities are required to be secured.

13. Thus considered, we hold that the Act specifically gives such a power. It is true that under Article 265 of the Constitution no tax can be levied without any authority of law. There is no quarrel on the proposition of law. In this case, from a reading of the aforesaid provisions it is clear that the statute, instead of prescribing the rate of developmental charges itself, has given power to the rule-making authority to regulate the collection of and payment of development fee. It is seen that under the direction which is not inconsistent with the provisions of the Act, it indicates the method and the manner in which the collection is to be secured so as to see that the area is developed in a planned manner as per the sanctions given by the competent authority. The High Court, therefore, was clearly in error in holding that there is no provision under the Act or the Rules to levy the development fee."

Thus, in view of the pronouncement of the Apex Court in State of U.P. And Malti Kaul (supra,) the Development Authority was entitled to levy the development fee.

The Apex Court has noted Section 59 of the 1973 Act, which is relevant for the present case Section 59 (1) (c) is quoted as under:

"59(1)(c). without prejudice to the generality of the provisions of clauses (a) and (b), and bye laws, directions or regulations under the U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916 or the Uttar Pradesh (Regulation of Building Operations) Act, 1958 or the Uttar Pradesh Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam, 1959, as the case may be, and in force on the date immediately before the date of commencement of this Act, shall in so far as they are not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act, continue in force, until altered, repealed or amended by any competent authority under this Act."

39. In view of Section 59(1)(c) the provisions of 1958, which was in force on the date immediately before the commencement 1973 Act, insofar as they are not in consistent with the provisions of 1973 Act, shall continue in force until altered, repealed or amended by any competent authority under this Act. The provisions of 1958 Act are thus to continue, which are not inconsistent with the provision of Act 1973 till they are altered repealed or amended.

40. As noted above, the amendment in 1973 Act was made by U.P. Act No. 3 of 1997 by which Section 2(ggg) defining development fee and Section 15(2-A) was inserted. Two Division Bench Judgments have been cited before us in which this Court, after noticing Section 15(2-A), has held that till Rules are not framed under Section 55 as per Section 15(2-A), development fee cannot be charged. In Virendra Kumar Tyagi v. Ghaziabad Development Authority (supra), the Division Bench of this Court held that since Section 15 (2-A) provides that the Authority shall be entitled to levy development fee, mutation charges, stacking fees and water fees in such manner and at such rate as may be prescribed, and word 'prescribed' having been defined in Section 4(33-A) of U.P. General Clauses Act, 1904, which provides that the word 'prescribed', shall mean prescribed by Rules made under the Act in which the word occurs, the development fee cannot be charged unless the same is prescribed by Rules.

41. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further placed reliance upon a Judgment rendered in the case of Dr. Umesh Chandra Maheshwari v. Mathura Vrindavan Development Authority, 2010(4) ADJ 368, in which case also the Division Bench referring to Section 15(2-A) held that till rules are framed by the State under Section 55, the development fee cannot be realised. In the said case, on an application submitted by the petitioners for sanction of plan, demand was made of betterment charges. Following was laid down in paragraph 16 of the Division Bench Judgment:

"Even under Section 57 of the Act the authority has power to make bye-laws. Therefore, it is crystal clear that either in the case of development fees or in the case of betterment charges the Rules, Regulations and Bye-laws have to be framed to attract the same. A decision by the Board without sanction of the authority to claim the external development charge is without any sanction of law. More particularly, there are no words available in the Act by the name of external development charges. The words external development charges are either synonyms or as far as closer to betterment fees since it relates to the area external to the building concerned, which has been developed on the basis of the sanctioned plan upon payment of charges, being development charges amongst others. If such betterment charge is being claimed then the authority has to satisfy that there is a betterment of the locality in compliance with Sections 35 and 36 of the Act. But if no such development is done to claim the betterment charges and no rules, no regulations and no bye-laws are framed to that extent, obviously the claim in the name of external development happens to be external to the law and a claim to enrich the authority unjustly, therefore, such claim cannot be held to be sustainable. Hence, the notices/orders impugned in this writ petition are liable to be quashed and are quashed. Thus, the writ petition is allowed, however, without imposing any cost."

42. It is noticed that in the said Division Bench, the Judgement of the Apex Court in State of U.P. v. Malti Kaul (Smt.) and another (supra) was noticed but in the discussions, the said case escaped notice of the Court. Whereas the Judgement in Virendra Kumar Tyagi (supra) was delivered by the Division Bench of this Court prior to pronouncement of Supreme Court in State of U.P. v. Malti Kaul (supra).

43. Learned counsel for Development Authorities have submitted that against Division Bench Judgement in Dr. Umesh Chandra Maheshwari (supra), a Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 16615 of 2010 has been filed by Development Authority in the Apex Court in which the Apex Court on 12.11.2010 has issued notices.

44. Special leave petition filed against the Division Bench Judgment in Virendra Kumar Tyagi has been dismissed.

45. Learned counsel for the petitioners have also brought to the notice of the Court that State has published draft rules namely Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Authority (Assessment of Levy and Collection of Development Fees), Rules, 2013, which are in process of finalisation.

46. The statutory scheme as delineated by Section 15(2-A) and the view taken in the aforesaid two Judgments by Division Bench in Virendra Kumar Tyagi and Umesh Chandra Maheshwari that rules are required to be framed under Section 55, need no quarrel. However, the statutory provisions under 1958 Act, which were in force on the date of enforcement of 1973 Act, were entitled to continue by virtue of Section 59, sub-section (1) (c) of 1973 Act. In the aforesaid Judgments, there is no discussion or any finding that provisions of 1958 Act including 1960 directions are inconsistent with any provision of 1973 Act. As noted above, the Judgment of the Apex Court in State of U.P. v. Malti Kaul (supra) has held that the Development authorities are entitled to charge development fee on strength of 1958 Act and the direction issued therein by virtue of Section 59 of 1973 Act. The view of the Division Bench Judgment of this Court in Malti Kaul v. State of U.P. (supra) was disapproved where the High Court held that the Development Authorities has no right to charge any development fee. Normally, we had to have made a reference to the Larger Bench for reconsideration of the Division Bench Judgment in Virendra Kumar Tyagi and Dr. Umesh Maheshwari but in view of the binding Judgment of the Apex Court under Article 141 of the Constitution of India in State of U.P. and others v. Malti Kaul (Smt.) and another, 1996 (10) SCC 425, we feel ourselves bound to follow the Judgment of the Supreme Court by which Judgement the Apex Court has held that Development Authorities are entitled to charge development fee.

47. One more submission, which has been pressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in developed localities when an application is submitted for sanction of plan, the Development Authority is not entitled to charge any development fee since the area has already been developed. It is further submitted that Development Authorities are obliged to carry on development in developed area but no development is being carried out by it although huge development fee is demanded by the Development Authorities.

48. Section 2(ggg) as quoted above defines development fee as the fee which is levied upon a person for construction of road, drainage, sewer-line, electric supply and water supply lines in the developed area by the Development Authority. Construction of road, drainage, sewer-line, electric supply and water supply is a continuous process requiring huge funds. The definition of development fee as above cannot be read to mean that development fee can be charged only when Development Authority has already constructed the road, drain, sewer-line, electric supply and water supply. The development fee is charged for carrying out the above development activities by the development authority which it is obliged to do.

49. In supplementary counter-affidavit filed by Allahabad Development Authority dated 1.8.2011 sworn by Baij Nath, Joint Secretary, Allahabad Development Authority wherein details of certain work, which has been carried out and incurred expenses have been given. The scope of this writ petition is not to scrutinize the works carried out by the Development Authority towards development in the developed area of Allahabad or in developed area of other cities nor to scrutinize as to whether the fund realised by the Development Authorities are being utilized for carrying out the development activities or not. The issue which has come up for consideration is as to whether the development authority has any jurisdiction to charge development fee or not.

50. Even after amendment in 1973 Act by U.P. Act No. 3 of 1997, we do not find anything inconsistent in 1973 Act with the Directions 1960 as relied by the Apex Court in State of U.P. v. Malti Kaul (supra) so as to make the said direction authorizing the Development Authority to ask the applicant to deposit the development cost inoperative. As noted above, the process of framing of the Draft Rules 2013 has begun by the State Government and, of course, when the Rules are framed under Section 55 providing for rate, manner and mechanism for realising the development fee, the directions as contained in 1958 Act shall automatically come to an end but till the Rules are framed, it cannot be said that development authorities are having no statutory power to demand development fee from a applicant, who has applied for sanction of plant."

51. Learned counsel for the petitioners have also placed reliance on Judgment of the Apex Court in Consumer Online Foundation and others v. Union of India and others, 2011 (5) SCC 360. In the said case, the Apex Court had the occasion to consider various provisions of Airport Authority of India Act, 1994. Section 12A thereof provided that Airport Authority may make a lease of premises of an airport to carry out some of its functions under Section 12 as the Airport Authority may deem fit. Section 22-A of 1994 Act provides that with the approval of the Central Government, the Airport authority may levy and collect from the embarking passengers at a airport the development fee at the rate as may be prescribed. Section 22-A of 1994 Act was amended by the Airport Regulating Authority of India Act, 2008. Relevant facts have been noted in paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 of the Judgment, which are quoted as below:

"4. Section 22-A of the 1994 Act was amended by the Airports Economic Regulatory Authority of India Act, 2008 (for short "the 2008 Act") and the amended Section 22-A provided for determination of the rate of development fees for the major airports under clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 13 of the 2008 Act by the Airports Economic Regulatory Authority (for short "the Regulatory Authority"). The amended Section 22-A was to take effect on and from the date of the establishment of the Regulatory Authority.

5. The Government of India, Ministry of Civil Aviation, sent a Letter dated 9-2-2009 to DIAL conveying the approval of the Central Government under Section 22-A of the 1994 Act for levy of development fees by DIAL at the Delhi Airport at the rate of Rs.200 per departing domestic passenger and at the rate of Rs.1300 per departing international passenger inclusive of all applicable taxes, purely on ad hoc basis, for a period of 36 months with effect from 1-3-2009. Similarly, the Government of India, Ministry of Civil Aviation, sent another Letter dated 27-2-2009 to MIAL conveying the approval of the Central Government under Section 22-A of the 1994 Act for levy of development fees by MIAL at the Mumbai Airport at the rate of Rs. 100 per departing domestic passenger and at the rate of Rs.600 per departing international passenger inclusive of all applicable taxes, purely on ad hoc basis, for a period of 48 months with effect from 1-4-2009.

6. The levy of development fees by DIAL as the lessee of the Delhi Airport was challenged in Writ Petition No. 8918 of 2009 by the Resources of Aviation Redressal Association. The levy of development fees by DIAL and MIAL as lessees of the Delhi and Mumbai Airports were challenged in Writ Petition No.9316 of 2009 and Writ Petition No. 9307 of 2009 by Consumer Online Foundation. The writ petitioners contended inter alia that such levy of development fees under Section 22-A of the 1994 Act can only be made by the Airports Authority and not by the lessee and that until the rate of such levy is either prescribed by the Rules made under the 1994 Act or determined by the Regulatory Authority under the 2008 Act as provided in Section 22-A of the Act before and after its amendment by the 2008 Act, the levy and collection of development fees are ultra vires the 1994 Act. The Division Bench of the High Court, after hearing, held that there was no illegality attached to the imposition of development fees by the two lessees with the prior approval of the Central Government and dismissed the writ petitions by the impugned Judgment and order."

52. The High Court held that lessee was also entitled to levy and collect development fee. the matter was taken to the Apex Court and after considering the rival submissions, the Apex Court held that lessee is not entitled for charging development fee. Following was laid down in paragraph 16 and 24 of the said Judgment:

"16. To enable the Airports Authority to perform its statutory function of establishing a new airport or to assist in the establishment of private airports, the legislature has thought it fit to empower the Airports Authority to levy and collect development fees as will be clear from clauses (b) and (c) of Section 22-A of the 1994 Act. Such development fees levied and collected under Section 22-A can also be utilised for funding and financing the costs of upgradation, expansion and development of an existing airport at which the fees is collected as provided in clause (a) of Section 22-A of the Act and in case the lease of the premises of an existing airport (including buildings and structures thereon and appertaining thereto) has been made to a lessee under Section 12-A of the Act, the Airports Authority may meet the costs of upgradation expansion and development of such leased-out airport to a lessee, but this can be done only if the rules provide for such payment to the lessee of an airport because Section 22-A says that the development fees are to be regulated and utilised in the manner prescribed by the rules.

24. As observed by this Court in Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority v. Sharadkumar Jayantikumar Pasawalla, it has been consistently held by this Court that whenever there is compulsory exaction of money, there should be specific provision for the same and there is no room for intendment and nothing is to be read or nothing is to be implied and one should look fairly to the language used. Looking strictly at the plain language of Section 22-A of the 1994 Act before its amendment by the 2008 Act, the development fees were to be levied on and collected from the embarking passengers "at the rate as may be prescribed". Since the rules have not prescribed the rate at which the development fees could be levied and collected from the embarking passengers, levy and collection of development fees from the embarking passengers was without the authority of law."

53. There cannot be any quarrel to the propositions of law as laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid case. Section 22-A before its amendment in 2008 provided that development fee were to be levied and collected from the embarking passengers 'at the rate as may be prescribed' and since Rules were not framed, collection and levy was held to be without any authority.

54. As observed above, there cannot be any exception taken to the new legislative scheme as indicated and delineated by inserting Section 15(2-A) of 1973 Act. The manner and rate of development fee is to be prescribed by the Rules but, in the event, no rules have been framed Development Authorities can rightfully utilise Section 59 (1)(c) of the 1958 Act for locating their power for demanding development fee. As soon as the Rules as contemplated 15(2-A) are framed, the earlier statutory provisions of 1958 Act shall come to an end. Since manner and rate or relevant fees has not been prescribed by the Rules framed under Section 55 of the 1973 Act, to hold that the authority shall be denuded with its power to demand development fee, would not advance the object and purpose of the Act. The object and purpose of the Act is to entrust the Development Authority to carry out various development work.

55. In view of the foregoing discussion, we following the Judgment of the Apex Court in State of U.P. v. Malti Kaul (supra), hold that the Development Authorities have still the power to demand development charges as per law declared by the Apex Court in State of U.P. v. Malti Kaul till the statutory scheme governing the filed at present is replaced by the Rules framed by the State under Section 55 of 1973 Act.

56. For the above reasons, we answer issue nos. 1, 2 and 3 in following manner.

(I) The rules are required to frame by State Government under Section 55 as contemplated by Section 15(2)(A) of 19732 Act, however, even without there being rules framed the development fee can be demanded by the development authority as per the directions issued under 1958 Act by virtue of Section 59 (1) (c) of 1973 Act.

(II) Issue no. 2 is answered in affirmative.

(iii) Issue No. 3 is answered in negative."

57. Thus, it has been held by this Court as well as by the Supreme Court that the rules are required to frame by State Government under Section 55 as contemplated by Section 15(2)(A) of 1973 Act, however, even without there being rules framed the development fee can be demanded by the Development Authority as per the directions issued under 1958 Act by virtue of Section 59(1)(c) of 1973 Act.

58. According to the petitioner, the respondents have not carried out any development and, therefore, they are not entitled to charge extra development charges. The respondents in their supplementary counter affidavit filed on record in paras 3, 4 and 5 have specifically stated as under:

"3. That the answering opposite parties submit that the external development of the land, which is the subject matter of the aforesaid writ petition, is complete as per the present requirement. On the front side of the plot there is 76 meter wide Master Plan Road. The north side of the plot is being serviced by 76 meter wide Zonal Road. The Fly Overs, Railway Over Bridges and Bridges are elevated roads and are therefore covered under the general term of "Roads". There are ten locations of fly overs in Meerut City. The answering opposite parties are already bearing proportionate cost/share in the constructions. A photocopy of the master plan of the location is being filed as ANNEXURE NO.A to this counter affidavit.

4. That the area where the land is situated is well electrified with street light poles. The Meerut Development Authority, Meerut/opposite party no.2 has constructed 33 KV electric sub station. The said electric sub-station is functional and electricity feeders are available for the petitioner and other developers/institutions.

5. That the trunk sewer line has been laid and is available and functional for the connectivity to the petitioner's land. As soon as the petitioner shall complete its internal sewerage system and provide Invert Level, the truck sewer line, which is across the road, shall be connected. For the purp

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

ose of the sewerage disposal, land for sewerage treatment plant has been identified and earmarked in the Ved Vyas Puri Scheme of the answering opposite parties, which is on the other side of the 76 meter wide master plan road. The said land for sewerage treatment plan has been even acquired by the answering opposite parties and compensation whereof has also been disbursed and the possession of the land is with the answering opposite parties. The said sewerage treatment plants shall be constructed progressively, depending upon the inflow of sewerage." 59. Further, the petitioner is also guilty for concealing and withholding the fact that it had already deposited 40 percent of the external development charges at the enhanced rate of Rs.400/- per sq. ft. The Supreme Court in the case of 'K.D. Sharma vs. Steel Authority of India Limited and others', reported as (2008) 12 SCC 481, while dealing with the concealment of material facts and misleading the Court, has held as under: "34. The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 32 and of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is extraordinary, equitable and discretionary. Prerogative writs mentioned therein are issued for doing substantial justice. It is, therefore, of utmost necessity that the petitioner approaching the writ court must come with clean hands, put forward all the facts before the court without concealing or suppressing anything and seek an appropriate relief. If there is no candid disclosure of relevant and material facts or the petitioner is guilty of misleading the court, his petition may be dismissed at the threshold without considering the merits of the claim. xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx 38. The above principles have been accepted in our legal system also. As per settled law, the party who invokes the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 32 or of a High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is supposed to be truthful, frank and open. He must disclose all material facts without any reservation even if they are against him. He cannot be allowed to play "hide and seek" or to "pick and choose" the facts he likes to disclose and to suppress (keep back) or not to disclose (conceal) other facts. The very basis of the writ jurisdiction rests in disclosure of true and complete (correct) facts. If material facts are suppressed or distorted, the very functioning of writ courts and exercise would become impossible. The petitioner must disclose all the facts having a bearing on the relief sought without any qualification. This is because "the court knows law but not facts"." 60. The Supreme Court in the case of 'Bhaskar Laxman Jadhav and others vs. Karamveer Kakasaheb Wagh Education Society and others', reported as (2013) 11 Supreme Court Cases 531 held that it is the duty of the litigant to disclose all material facts and a litigant cannot decide which facts are material and which are not. He must come to court with clean hands and disclose all material facts relating to his case. The Supreme court further held as under: "Suppression of fact 42. While dealing with the conduct of the parties, we may also notice the submission of the learned counsel for Respondent 1 to the effect that the petitioners are guilty of suppression of a material fact from this Court, namely, the rejection on 2-5-2003 of the first application for extension of time filed by the trustees and the finality attached to it. These facts have not been clearly disclosed to this Court by the petitioners. It was submitted that in view of the suppression, special leave to appeal should not be granted to the petitioners. 43. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that no material facts have been withheld from this Court. It was submitted that while the order dated 2-5-2003 was undoubtedly not filed, its existence was not material in view of subsequent developments that had taken place. We cannot agree. 44. It is not for a litigant to decide what fact is material for adjudicating a case and what is not material. It is the obligation of a litigant to disclose all the facts of a case and leave the decision-making to the court. True, there is a mention of the order dated 2-5-2003 in the order dated 24-7-2006 passed by the JCC, but that is not enough disclosure. The petitioners have not clearly disclosed the facts and circumstances in which the order dated 2-5-2003 was passed or that it has attained finality. 45. We may only refer to two cases on this subject. In Hari Narain v. Badri Das, AIR 1963 SC 1558 stress was laid on litigants eschewing inaccurate, untrue or misleading statements, otherwise leave granted to an appellant may be revoked. It was observed as follows: (AIR p.1560, para 9) "9. .......It is of utmost importance that in making material statements and setting forth grounds in applications for special leave care must be taken not to make any statements which are inaccurate, untrue or misleading. In dealing with applications for special leave, the Court naturally takes statements of fact and grounds of fact contained in the petitions at their face value and it would be unfair to betray the confidence of the Court by making statements which are untrue and misleading. That is why we have come to the conclusion that in the present case, special leave granted to the appellant ought to be revoked. Accordingly, special leave is revoked and the appeal is dismissed. The appellant will pay the costs of the respondent." 46. More recently, in Ramjas Foundation v. Union of India, (2010) 14 SCC 38 the case law on the subject was discussed. It was held that if a litigant does not come to the Court with clean hands, he is not entitled to be heard and indeed, such a person is not entitled to any relief from any judicial forum. It was said: (SCC p.51, para 21) "21. The principle that a person who does not come to the court with clean hands is not entitled to be heard on the merits of his grievance and, in any case, such person is not entitled to any relief is applicable not only to the petitions filed under Articles 32, 226 and 136 of the Constitution but also to the cases instituted in others courts and judicial forums. The object underlying the principle is that every court is not only entitled but is duty-bound to protect itself from unscrupulous litigants who do not have any respect for truth and who try to pollute the stream of justice by resorting to falsehood or by making misstatement or by suppressing facts which have a bearing on adjudication of the issue(s) arising in the case." 47. A mere reference to the order dated 2-5-2003, en passant, in the order dated 24-7-2006 does not serve the requirement of disclosure. It is not for the court to look into every word of the pleadings, documents and annexures to fish out a fact. It is for the litigant to come upfront and clean with all material facts and then, on the basis of the submissions made by learned counsel, leave it to the court to determine whether or not a particular fact is relevant for arriving at a decision. Unfortunately, the petitioners have not done this and must suffer the consequence thereof." 61. Moreover, the MDA sent a letter dated 30th June 2006 to the State Government seeking approval of levy of Rs.400/- per square meter towards development charges and the State Government approved the same vide letter dated 17th June 2006 (annexure SCA-3 of counter affidavit). The same has not been disclosed by the petitioner. 62. Thus, a litigant, who approaches the Court is bound to state all the relevant facts and produce all the documents which are relevant to the litigation without any reservation even if they are against him. He cannot be allowed to play "hide and seek" or to "pick and choose" the facts he likes to disclose and to suppress or not to disclose other facts. 63. In view of the foregoing discussion and drawing support from the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of 'State of U.P. and others vs. Malti Kaul (supra), we do not fin any merit in the petition. The same is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs.
O R