Shaifuddin and others v. State of UP and others). In the said proceeding, it was also claimed that

3. It appears from the record that one Shri Ahmad Ali was the erstwhile owner of a Kothi situated over Khasra Plot No.131, Village, Shahpur, Tehsil-Sadar, District-Gorakhpur. The said plot was covered by acquisition proceedings under Uttar Pradesh Avas Evam Vikas Parishad, Adhiniyam, 1965. The erstwhile owner represented that the said Khasra number along with constructions may be exempted from the acquisition proceedings. Under the existing policy, the erstwhile owner was required to deposit development charges whereupon his request could be considered. Thereafter, the Assistant Housing Commissioner sent a letter/communication dated 30.09.1983 to the erstwhile owner stating that after taking the development charges and adjusting the same in the layout, the constructions standing over the aforesaid Khasra plot were exempted from the acquisition. The Housing Commissioner had issued a letter to the Special Land Acquisition Officer of U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad, Lucknow informing him that the constructions standing over disputed plot/khasra number in question have been exempted from the acquisition and as such, no compensation may be paid to the owner of the land and the building.

4. After about 20 years, the Uttar Pradesh Avas Evam Vikas Parishad (in short, Parishad) initiated an exercise to collect relevant information regarding the deposit of the development charges. The Executive Engineer at Gorakhpur vide notice dated

22.09.2017 directed one Shaifuddin to deposit Rs 17,51,880=60. Again a reminder was sent on 17.01.2008 requiring him to deposit the same amount or if the amount has already been deposited to submit proof of the same. Shaifuddin and others had challenged the order dated 18.07.2009 issued by the Parishad and the subsequent letters/orders/notices dated 22.09.2007, 17.01.2008, and 08.07.2008 in Writ C No.41291 of 2009 (Shaifuddin and others vs. State of UP and others). In the said proceeding, it was also claimed that the respondents may be restrained from realizing any amount from the petitioners towards development charges pursuant to the impugned orders/letters/notices. Finally, the Division Bench vide judgement and order dated 24.04.2018 allowed the writ petition and set aside the aforesaid orders/letters/notices. The Division Bench further hold that no demand can be raised, and further directed that the amount deposited by the petitioners pursuant to the interim order dated

12.08.2009 be returned to the said petitioners by the Parishad and its officers within six weeks.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners in this backdrop submits that the development charges, which were levied by the Parishad, were already set aside by the Division Bench vide judgement and order dated 24.04.2018 and at no point of time, the same had been assailed by the Parishad and for all practical purpose, the same has attained finality. Moreover, the land in question has also been released by the competent authority vide an order dated

30.09.1983 (Annexure No.6 to the writ petition). He submits that the impugned notice dated 04.03.2025 is per se unsustainable and the same is liable to be set aside.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the Parishad has raised preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the instant writ petition on two fold submissions; (i) the instant writ petition has been preferred against the impugned show cause notice; the writ petition is premature and the same is liable to be dismissed at this stage, and (ii) the land in question falls within the territorial jurisdiction of the Parishad and no such development can be carried out except in accordance with prevailing Bye- laws/Regulations framed by the Parishad. As such, the present petition is devoid of merit and the same is liable to be dismissed.

7. Considering the factual situation, we have proceeded to examine the record in question and perused the judgment and order dated

24.04.2018 passed by the Division Bench in Shaifuddin and others (supra), wherein the demand raised by the Parishad towards the development charges was already set aside and even the amount deposited by the petitioners pursuant to the interim order dated 12.08.2009 was directed to be returned to the petitioners. Consequently, the third party interest has also been created and the various plots have been carved out.

8. It is not in dispute that the land in question falls in the developed area of the Parisahd. No such claim has been set up before us to indicate that the land in dispute is beyond the purview of the Parishad as the Parishad has framed its Bye-laws and regulations, wherein the demand towards development charge was also payable. Nothing has been brought on record to suggest that the fragmentation had ever been accepted by the Parishad and permitted the individual to carve out plots of different sizes in the development area. As the petitioners claim that they have already deposited the development charges in the year 2009 itself and at this stage, they are not disputing that the development charge cannot be levied by the Parishad for further development under the Scheme of the Parishad.

9. Considering the pleading, as has been set up, we find that in case the petitioners file detailed exhaustive representation ventilating their grievances within two weeks from today, the competent authority must re-visit in the matter and pass an appropriate order in the light of judgement passed by the Division Bench in Shaifuddin and others (supra) in further two months' time after affording opportunity to all the stake holders.

10. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands disposed of. Order Date :- 7.7.2025 RKP RAKESH KUMAR PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

3. It appears from the record that one Shri Ahmad Ali was the erstwhile owner of a Kothi situated over Khasra Plot No.131, Village, Shahpur, Tehsil-Sadar, District-Gorakhpur. The said plot was covered by acquisition proceedings under Uttar Pradesh Avas Evam Vikas Parishad, Adhiniyam, 1965. The erstwhile owner represented that the said Khasra number along with constructions may be exempted from the acquisition proceedings. Under the existing policy, the erstwhile owner was required to deposit development charges whereupon his request could be considered. Thereafter, the Assistant Housing Commissioner sent a letter/communication dated 30.09.1983 to the erstwhile owner stating that after taking the development charges and adjusting the same in the layout, the constructions standing over the aforesaid Khasra plot were exempted from the acquisition. The Housing Commissioner had issued a letter to the Special Land Acquisition Officer of U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad, Lucknow informing him that the constructions standing over disputed plot/khasra number in question have been exempted from the acquisition and as such, no compensation may be paid to the owner of the land and the building.

4. After about 20 years, the Uttar Pradesh Avas Evam Vikas Parishad (in short, Parishad) initiated an exercise to collect relevant information regarding the deposit of the development charges. The Executive Engineer at Gorakhpur vide notice dated

22.09.2017 directed one Shaifuddin to deposit Rs 17,51,880=60. Again a reminder was sent on 17.01.2008 requiring him to deposit the same amount or if the amount has already been deposited to submit proof of the same. Shaifuddin and others had challenged the order dated 18.07.2009 issued by the Parishad and the subsequent letters/orders/notices dated 22.09.2007, 17.01.2008, and 08.07.2008 in Writ C No.41291 of 2009 (Shaifuddin and others vs. State of UP and others). In the said proceeding, it was also claimed that the respondents may be restrained from realizing any amount from the petitioners towards development charges pursuant to the impugned orders/letters/notices. Finally, the Division Bench vide judgement and order dated 24.04.2018 allowed the writ petition and set aside the aforesaid orders/letters/notices. The Division Bench further hold that no demand can be raised, and further directed that the amount deposited by the petitioners pursuant to the interim order dated

12.08.2009 be returned to the said petitioners by the Parishad and its officers within six weeks.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners in this backdrop submits that the development charges, which were levied by the Parishad, were already set aside by the Division Bench vide judgement and order dated 24.04.2018 and at no point of time, the same had been assailed by the Parishad and for all practical purpose, the same has attained finality. Moreover, the land in question has also been released by the competent authority vide an order dated

30.09.1983 (Annexure No.6 to the writ petition). He submits that the impugned notice dated 04.03.2025 is per se unsustainable and the same is liable to be set aside.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the Parishad has raised preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the instant writ petition on two fold submissions; (i) the instant writ petition has been preferred against the impugned show cause notice; the writ petition is premature and the same is liable to be dismissed at this stage, and (ii) the land in question falls within the territorial jurisdiction of the Parishad and no such development can be carried out except in accordance with prevailing Bye- laws/Regulations framed by the Parishad. As such, the present petition is devoid of merit and the same is liable to be dismissed.

7. Considering the factual situation, we have proceeded to examine the record in question and perused the judgment and order dated

24.04.2018 passed by the Division Bench in Shaifuddin and others (supra), wherein the demand raised by the Parishad towards the development charges was already set aside and even the amount deposited by the petitioners pursuant to the interim order dated 12.08.2009 was directed to be returned to the petitioners. Consequently, the third party interest has also been created and the various plots have been carved out.

8. It is not in dispute that the land in question falls in the developed area of the Parisahd. No such claim has been set up before us to indicate that the land in dispute is beyond the purview of the Parishad as the Parishad has framed its Bye-laws and regulations, wherein the demand towards development charge was also payable. Nothing has been brought on record to suggest that the fragmentation had ever been accepted by the Parishad and permitted the individual to carve out plots of different sizes in the development area. As the petitioners claim that they have already deposited the development charges in the year 2009 itself and at this stage, they are not disputing that the development charge cannot be levied by the Parishad for further development under the Scheme of the Parishad.

9. Considering the pleading, as has been set up, we find that in case the petitioners file detailed exhaustive representation ventilating their grievances within two weeks from today, the competent authority must re-visit in the matter and pass an appropriate order in the light of judgement passed by the Division Bench in Shaifuddin and others (supra) in further two months' time after affording opportunity to all the stake holders.

10. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands disposed of. Order Date :- 7.7.2025 RKP RAKESH KUMAR PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad