9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (8) TMI 530X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ellants to give opportunity of being heard to the respondents and then levy charges. Calling the decision in question these appeals have come to be filed. The High Court concluded that there is no provision in the Act or the Rules made thereunder, to demand and collect the development fee. with a view to appreciate the contentions of the counsel on either side and the findings recorded by the High Court, it is necessary to consider the relevant provisions of the Act. Section 4 contemplates that the State Government may, notification in the Gazette, constitute, for the purpose of the Act, an authority called Development Authority for any development area. Development has been defined in Section 2 (e) with its grammatical variations, to mean the carrying out of building, engineering, mining or other operations in, on, over or under land, or the making of any material change in any building or land, and includes re-development. Development Area has been defined in Section 2 (f) to mean any area declared to be development area under Section 3. It has been empowered, where the Government in exercise of the Power under Section 3 has declared that any area within the State req ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... including the department of the Government, he is enjoined to obtain in writing from the Vice-Chairman sanction for development in accordance with the provisions of the Act. When the Levy of the development fee was charged on the respondents, they came to question the power of the authority. The question, therefore, is: whether such a power is traceable to the provisions of the Act? Section 33 of the Act gives power to the development authority to provide amenities or carry out development authority to provide amenities or carry out development at the cast of owner in the event of his default and to Levy cess in certain cases. Under sub-section (1) thereof, if the Authority is satisfied, after conducting the inquiry as contemplated therein or upon report from any of its officers or other information in its possession, that any amenity in relation to any land in development area has not been provided in relation to that land which, in the opinion of the authority ought to have ben or ought to be provided or that any development of the land of for which permission, approval or sanction has been obtained under the Act or under any other law in force before the Act came into force, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... local body concerned for the development of the land and for provision of other amenities and has either deposited the full estimated cast 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 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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. The High court has relied upon the judgment of this Court in Ahmedabad Development vs. Pasawalla [(1992(3) SCR 328]. The said ratio has no application to the facts in this case. In that case, it was found as a fact that there was no express provision for levy and demand of the developmental charges. They sought to rely on the doctrine of ejusdem generis as a source to levy the development fee. The High Court having noticed that the authority under Section 19 has the heads enumerated in subsection (1) of Section 91 as the source of funds. This Court found that the doctrine of ejusdem generis cannot be applied to levy and charge of development fee. In The Hingir-Rampur Coal Co.Ltd. vs. The State of Orissa [(1961) 2 SCR 537], a Constitution Bench of this Court has held that a fee is levied essentially for services rendered and there must be an element of quid pro quo between the person who pays it and the public authority that impose it. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
