Allahabad High Court

PRAFUL WADHWAversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 4 OTHERS

Decided: 1 April 2026
Bench: MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI KUNAL RAVI SINGH

Holding

The Court ordered that the question of further external development charges be examined by the Vice Chairman of ADA after a hearing to both parties, stayed any coercive action, and barred further construction pending that decision.

Summary

The petitioner, claiming ownership of portions of Plot No. 216 in Agra, sought a mandamus directing the Agra Development Authority (ADA) to decide a representation dated 01.07.2025 and to recalculate external development charges after accounting for payments already made by the Society. The petitioner alleged that despite submitting a building plan application and responding to objections, the ADA repeatedly rejected the file, sealed the premises without proper notice, and later demanded additional external development charges, which the petitioner contended were already paid by the Society. The Court noted that the Society, a respondent, had deposited substantial sums towards external development charges in 2012 and thereafter, and therefore ordered that the question of any further demand on the petitioner be examined by the Vice Chairman of ADA after giving a hearing to both the petitioner and the Society’s secretary. The Court stayed any coercive action against the petitioner and prohibited further construction until the Vice Chairman’s decision is rendered, directing completion of the inquiry within two months. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of.

Issues considered

Whether the Agra Development Authority must decide the petitioner’s representation dated 01.07.2025.
Whether the external development charges demanded from the petitioner are payable given prior payments by the Society.
Whether the sealing of the premises without notice and without adjudicating objections is lawful.
Whether a writ of mandamus can be issued directing the ADA to recalculate charges in accordance with the rules.

Subjects

building plan
external development charges
mandamus
Agra Development Authority
sealing of premises
writ petition
property law
land use regulations

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 25489 of 2025

Praful Wadhwa
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus

State Of U.P. And 4 Others
.....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Sudeep Harkauli
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Aditya Singh Parihar, C.S.C., Jai
Bahadur Singh, Suresh C. Dwivedi

Court No. - 21
HON'BLE MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, J.
HON'BLE KUNAL RAVI SINGH, J.

1. Counter filed today is taken on record.

2. Heard Shri Sudeep Harkauli, learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms.
Uttara Bahuguna, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the
State-respondents, Shri Jai Bahadur Singh, learned counsel for the
respondent – Agra Development Authority (ADA), and Shri Aditya Singh
Parihar, learned counsel for respondent No. 6 – Nagrik Sahakari Awas
Samiti Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the 'Society').

3. The instant writ petition has been preferred praying inter alia for the
following relief:

"(a) Issue any writ order or direction in the nature of
mandamus directing the respondent authorities to decide the
representation dated 01.07.2025.

(b) Issue any writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus
directing the respondent to recalculate the charges to be paid
in accordance with the rules and after taking into account the
payments for external developments made by the society and its
members.

Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and
circumstances of the case.

(d) Award costs of the petition to the petitioner throughout."

4. The record reflects that the petitioner claims to be the owner of part of
Plot No. 216, situated at Sardari Lal Wadhwa Nagar, Phase-I and II,
comprising Khasra Nos. 6, 7, 8 and 9, Mauja Chamrauli, District Agra, and
Khasra No. 322 (part), Mauja Basai Mustkil, Tajganj Ward, Agra.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the land in question
falls within the territorial jurisdiction of respondent - Agra Development
Authority (ADA), the petitioner had submitted an application on 09.11.2023
seeking sanction of a building plan for construction of a school, after
depositing all requisite charges. It is submitted that objections were raised
from time to time by the respondent - ADA, which were duly replied to by
the petitioner along with all necessary supporting documents. Despite the
same, the file was repeatedly rejected and, in the meantime, the petitioner
undertook only basic construction work, asserting that the proposed
construction was in conformity with the building bye-laws framed by the
ADA and the applicable land use regulations. Subsequently, the premises
was sealed on 25.09.2024 without proper notice and without deciding the
petitioner’s objections and representations. Thereafter, upon a fresh
compounding application, the respondent - ADA demanded a substantial
amount, including External Development Charges. It is submitted that such
demand is wholly arbitrary and illegal, inasmuch as the land forms part of a
sanctioned colony and a junior high school is a permissible use within the
residential category under the applicable zoning regulations.

6. Initially, while entertaining the writ petition on 04.09.2025, this Court
took note of paragraph 32 of the writ petition, wherein it has been averred
that certain amounts were deposited by the Society through challan dated
06.03.2012 amounting to Rs.33,36,413/-, and that previously also the
Society had deposited a sum of Rs. 21,56,927/- for sanction of the map. The
remaining amount was also deposited through five cheques bearing Cheque
Nos. 548634, 548635, 548636, 548637 and 548638, amounting in all to Rs.
40,07,743/-, as six monthly instalments had been fixed by the Authority
towards External Development Charges. This Court had, therefore, required
WRIC No. 25489 of 2025
3

the parties to complete their pleadings, as the petitioner had confined the
relief to the extent that since the Society had already deposited the amount
towards External Development Charges, no such charge could again be
levied upon an individual member of the Society. So far as the compounding
charges are concerned, the petitioner has no objection.

7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and since the Society
has also appeared in the present proceedings as respondent No. 6, this Court
expects that the aforesaid factual aspect, namely, whether the amount
towards External Development Charges has already been deposited by the
Society so as to bar any further demand upon the petitioner, may be
examined by the Vice Chairman, ADA, but certainly after affording an
opportunity of hearing not only to the petitioner but also to the Secretary of
the Society. The said exercise shall be completed expeditiously, preferably
within a period of two months from the date of presentation of a certified
copy of this order. Till such decision is taken, no coercive action shall be
taken against the petitioner in pursuance of the impugned demand.
However, the petitioner shall not carry out any further construction or
development over the property in question till the aforesaid decision is
rendered by the Vice Chairman, ADA.

8. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands disposed of.

(Kunal Ravi Singh,J.) (Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.)
April 2, 2026
NLY

Digitally signed by :-
NAND LAL YADAV
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…