Holding

The State Government must examine the delay, afford a hearing under the proviso to Section 34 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, and the development and construction charges under the Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 are enforceable, leading to the release of the specified land on payment of such charges.

Summary

The Moradabad Development Authority (MDA) appealed a High Court order that directed it to return surplus land to respondents Saurabh Jain and others and to pay compensation. The land had been declared surplus under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 in 1977, but a 1998 revision by the State Government held it agricultural and outside the Act, allowing its release. The High Court later held the demand for development charges illegal and ordered the land’s return or compensation. The Supreme Court held that when exercising revision under Section 34 of the 1976 Act, the State must examine the delay in filing, afford a hearing to affected parties, and that development and construction charges under the Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 are enforceable. Consequently, the Court directed the MDA to release 3,570 sq.m of unutilized land on payment of the statutory charges, dismissing the appeal.

Issues considered

Whether the State Government, exercising revisional power under Section 34 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, must consider the delay in filing the petition and provide a hearing to affected parties.
Whether development and construction charges are statutorily imposable under the Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 and independent of the 1976 Act proceedings.
Whether the High Court erred in directing the return of land or compensation without accounting for the agreement to pay development charges.
Whether a petition filed after a two‑decade lapse is maintainable under Section 34.

Legislation cited

Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976s. 33, s. 34
Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973s. 17, s. 34

Subjects

Urban Land Ceiling ActSection 34 revisionDevelopment chargesNatural justiceLand surplusCompensationUttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development ActAppealPossession

Judgment

)-

MORADABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY A
-(
v.
SAURABH JAIN AND ORS.

SEPTEMBER 28, 2007
B
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND
LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, JJ.]
.,.
• Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976:
c
s. 34 andproviso-Revision-Reasonable time limitfor filing of-
Land declared as surplus-Possession taken-After about 20 years
State Government, on a revision petition, holding land not covered
under the Act and directing to release it-Meanwhile land developed
as residential colony and houses and flats constructed thereon-
D
HELD: For exercising revisional power, Government has to examine
.; >-- why applicant has not availed remedy offiling the appeal-It is also
necessary to examine whether after a long lapse oftime any action is
warranted-Besides, the proviso to s. 34 mandates grant ofreasonable
opportunity ofbeing heard to any person who is likely to be affected
E
by the order-Natural justice.

UP. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973:

ss. 17 and 3 4-Restoration of land on payment ofdevelopment
-~
charges etc. -On land declared as surplus under 19 76 Act, houses and F
flats for a residential colony constructed thereon-Jn revision after 20
years Government holding land not covered by 1976 Act-Some
portion ofland directed to be returned to land owners on payment of
development charges etc.-HELD: Development charges and
construction charges are statutorily imposable under the Act-ss. 17 G
.,. and 34 of the Act are not dependent on the proceedings under 1976
Act-On land-owners agreeing to pay development and other charges
as payable in law, direction given to release the unutilized vacant land
as specified in the judgment-Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation)
443 H
444 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 10 S.C.R.

A Act, 1976-s.34.

Land admeasuring 8116.89 sq. mf:rs.. belonging to the respondents
was declared surplus under the Urba111 Land (Ceiling and Regulation)
Act, 1976 in theyear1977. But, by order dated 9.7.1998,passed by the
B State Government in a revision peftition, the land was held to be
agricultural land and beyond the pun·iew ofthe 1976 Act, and, as such,
was directed to be released. Howt!ver, meanwhile the land was
developed as a residential colony and flats and houses constructed
thereon were allotted to various alllottees. On the application for
C restitution by the respondents, the Gl{)vernment agreed to return 3605
sq. mtrs. ofland subject to payment of development charges and cost
of construction. The High Court, in the writ petition filed by the
respondents, held that the demand for development charges was illegal,
arbitrary and unjustified, and direded the State Government and the
D appellant to return to the respondents 4511 sq. mtrs. ofland in the vicinity
of the land in dispute or to pay compensation at full market value.
Aggrieved, the Development Authority filed the instant appeal.

Disposing of the appeal, the Court

E HELD:l.1. The High Court failed to notice that after20 years from
the date when the declaration of surplus land was made, the petition
under Section 34 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976
was filed without explaining as to what was the cause for inaction for
two decades. For the exercise ofre'visional power it is open to the State >..
F Government to examine a petition and on the basis of material indicated
therein to decide whether any action in terms of Section 34 is called for.
If the State Government decides to act on the basis of petition filed by
any person, it has to examine as to why the person has not availed the
remedy offtling an appeal. It is also necessary to examine whether after
G a long lapse of time any action is warranted. In this exercise, filing of
petition within a reasonable time is inbuilt. Besides, the petition for
revision u/s 34 of the Act filed by the respo~dents was disposed of
without notict> to the appellant. Though the appellant had the title over
the land, the name of the appelfantwas not included in the plaint as a
H
/

MORADABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORlTY v. . 445
SAURABH JAIN
party. Thus the appellant was not heard by the revisional authority. The A
proviso to Section34 mandates grant ofreasonable opportunity ofbeing
heard to any person who is likely to be affected by the order.
[Paras 9, 16, 19 and 20] (448-D, E; 450-C-D; 449-E; 450-E]

Pune Municipal Corporation v. State of Maharashtra and Ors., B
(2007] 5 sec 211, relied on.
1.2. The development charges and construction charges are
> statutorily imposable under the U.P. Urban Planning and Development
Act, 1973. At the request of the respondents 1-3, the State Government
did not take steps for acquiring the land. There was a clear agreement C
to pay the development charges and other charges on the condition that
there was no need for acquiring the land. Sections 17 and 34 of the
Development Act are not dependant on the proceedings under the
Ceiling Act The High Court was not justified in ignoring this vital aspect
It is clear that the High Court has not really considered the true import D
of the concession made for payment of development charges. There
was no illegal use and, therefore, the question of any compensation
payable as directed by the High Court does not arise.
[Paras 11, 12 and 15] [448-G; 449-A, B, D, E]
E
1.3. The impugned conclusions of the High Court are not
sustainable. Normally, the Court would have set aside the impugned
order and remanded the matter to the High Court to decide the same
afresh. But since respondents 1-3 agree that 3570 sq. mtrs. ofland may
be returned to them on payment of development charges and other F
charges, as payable in law, the appeal is disposed ofwith the following
directions:

(l)The appellant authority shall release3570 sq. mtrs. ofunutilized
vacant land on payment of development charges and other charges
payable under the Development Act. G
(2)Respondents 1-3 shall not be entitled for any land beyond 3570
sq.mfrs relatable to the present dispute.
[Paras21 and22] (450-F,G; 451-A-B]
H
\

446 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] I 0 S.C.R.

A CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4329 of
2003. .

From the Judgment and Order dated 12.5.2003 of the High Court
of Judicature at Allahabad in C.M.W.P. No. 30433/2002.
B WITH

Contempt Petition (C) No. 239/2005.
I

Sharan Amarendera, M.P. Shorawala, Vipin K. Saxena, Jyoti \.
<
Saxena, Shashi Kiran and Amit Tiwari for the Appellant.
c
Shail Kumar Dwivedi, A.A.G., Rak1esh Dwivedi, Prashant Kumar,
Mukti Chowdhary, Shantanu Krishna, Arvind Mohan, Amit Singh, Raj
Kumar Gupta, G. Venkateswar Rao, Kamlendra Mishra and Anuvrat
Sharma for the Respondents.
D The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
--L. ...
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. I. Challenge in this appeal is to the
judgment of a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court allowing the
Writ Petition (CMWP No.30433/2002) filed by respondents 1, 2 and
E 3.
2. Challenge in the writ petition was to the order passed by the State
Government dated 23.11.2001 Annexure-6 to the writ petition and orders
dated 11.12.2001and15.4.2002 Annexures 7 and 8 respectively passed
by the appellant-Moradabad Development Authority. The writ petitioners ).-..,
F had also prayed for a mandamus to direct the respondents in the writ
petition to forthwith return to the writ petitioners possession of the land
measuring 8116.65 sq. mtrs. of plot No.454 situated in village Harthala
Mustal1kam Tehsil, District Moradabad.

G 3. Background facts as highlighted in the writ petition were that the
proceedings under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976
(in short the 'Act') were initi~ted and in the connected proceedings the
.land in question was declared to be surplus land by the competent
authority, Moradabad by order dated 29 .8.1977. A Revision was filed
H against the said order and the State Government in exercise of power
I
)-
I
MORADABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. 447
SAURABHJAIN (PASAYAT,J.]
under Section 34 of the Act by order dated 9.7.1998 held that the land A
in dispute was agricultural land and was thus outside the purview of the
Act. Hence, land was directed to be released in favour of the land holders.
The matter was referred to the State Government. Restoration of
possession was demanded since the appellant authority had taken
possession of the land in dispute and had developed a residential colony. B
The State Government had detailed deliberation with the appellant authority
which informed that it had developed a residential colony called Ram
Ganga Vihar Colony and had allotted the flats and houses to the allottees.
Th~ appellant authority sent proposal for acquisition of the land but it was
not acceptable to the Government. However, the appellant authority C
proposed to return 3605 sq.mts. of land which had not still been
transferred. By order dated 23.11.2001 the State Government directed
the appellant authority to return the land in question. However, it directed
that the development ch~ges and cost of construction over the area were
to be charged from the writ petitioners. But the State Government did D
not give any direction regarding the balance 4511 sq. mtrs. out of the total
land.
4. Appellant authority on the basis of the aforesaid order of the
Government demanded Rs.62,24,534/- as development charges and cost
of construction in respect of the area measuring 2312-82 sq. mtrs. E
5. Stand in the writ petition was that in view of the order of the State
Government dated 9. 7.1998, the decision of the appellant authority could
not claim any lawful title. The appellant authority it was contended was
duty bound to restore the possession of the land to the respondents, and F
since it did not do so the respondents were suffering huge losses.
6. Stand of the appellant in the writ petition was that possession of
the land was delivered to it in June 1989 and at that time it was surplus
land under the Act. In the intervening period residential colony was
0
developed and many flats and houses have been allotted and transferred
to various persons.
7. The High Court had held that submissions ofrespondents 1, 2
and 3 regarding the consent for the development charges were not
H
\
448 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 10 S.C.R.

A believable. There was no specific reference to this aspect in the counter
affidavit filed. Ifit was really so, it shoulld have found place in the counter
affidavit. It was held that demand for development charges was illegal,
arbitrcuy and unjustified. Accordingly, the writ petition was al!owed. The
State Government and the appellant authority were directed to give
B possession of the land measuring 4511 sq. mtrs. in the vicinity of the land
in dispute or to pay compensation at full market value. In addition,
respondents in the writ petition were d.irected to pay compensation for
illegal u~e of the land since the date they took possession. The
compensation was directed to be determined by the District Judge,
C Moradabad.
8. In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the appellant
submitted that the High Court's order suffers from various infinnities.
9. The High Court failed to notice: that after 20 years from the date
D when the declaration of surplus land was made, the petition under Section
34 of the Act was filed without explaining as to what was the cause for -4
inaction of two decades. Section 34 petition filed by the respondents 1,
2 and 3 was disposed of without notice to the appellant. Though the
appellant had the title over the land, the name of the appellant was not
E included in the plaint as a party.
10. It is submitted that the proviso 1to Section 34 of the Act is equally
applicable and that has not been considered. The High Court also did
not take note of a letter written by the predecessor-in-interest of the
F respondents 1, 2 and 3 on 28.12.2000 for release of 3598 sq.mtrs. of
unutilized vacant land in their favour in lien of the entire claim and there
was agreement to pay the development charges and betterment charges.
11. In terms of the State Government's directions the appellant
authority at the most has to release 3605 sq.mtrs. ofland on payment of
G development charges and construction of cost at prevalent market rate.
The High Court was not justified in ignoring this vital aspect.
12. The inaction nearly for two decades was not explained. A
statutory time limit is fixed for appeals. Only in case appeals are not filed,
H the revisional jurisdiction can be resorted to. That does not allow a party
(

J-
/
MORADABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. 449
SAURABH JAIN [PASAYAT, J.]
to move for relief without taking any action for nearly two decades. The A
development charges and construction charges are statutorily imposable
under the U.P. Urban Planning & Development Act, 1973 (in short the
'Development Act'). At the request of the respondents 1, 2 and 3 the
State Government did not take steps for acquiring the land. There was a
clear agreement to pay the development charges and other charges on B
the condition that there was no need for acquiring the land. Sections 17
and 34 of the Development Act are not dependant on the proceedings
..,_ under the Act.
13. It is pointed out that there was no illegal use by the appellant C
authority and, therefore, the question of compensation does not arise.
14. Learned counsel for the respondents 1, 2 and 3 on the other
hand submitted that without any authority of law use of the land was
deprived of them for nearly two decades. The High Court, it was
submitted, was justified giving the directions and coming to the impugned D
.>- conclusions.
15. It is clear that the High Court has not really considered the true
import of the concession made for payment of development charges. As
rightly contended by learned counsel for the appellant there was no illegal E
use and, therefore, the question of any compensation payable as directed
by the High Court does not arise.
16. Undisputedly also the revision before the State Government was
made nearly after two decades. In the instant case the appellant was not
heard by the revisional authority. F
17. Section 33 of the Act relates to an appeal by a person aggrieved
by any order made by the competent authority under the Act not being
an order under Section 11 or an order under sub-section ( 1) of Section
30. The appeal is to be filed within 30 days from the date on which the 0
order is communicated to him. Under the proviso to Section 33 the
Appellate Authority may entertain the appeal after the expiry of 30 days
if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from
filing the appeal in time. Every order passed by the Appellate Authority
under the statute is final. H
\

450 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 10 S.C.R.

A 18. Section 34 deals with revision by the State Government. Under
the said provision, the State Government may on its own motion call for
and examine the record of any order passed or proceeding taken under
the provisions of the Act and against which no appeal has been preferred
under Section 12 or Section 30 or Section 33 for the purpose of satisfying
B himself as to the legality or propriety of such order or as to the regularity
of such procedure and pas such order as it may deem fit.
19. As a bare reading of the provision shows that it relates to suo -(
motu action on the part of the State Government. In that sense, a person . yr

aggrieved who had a remedy of appeal under Section 33 has no statutory
c right to move in revision. How€::ver, for the exercise of revisional power
by the State Government it is open to the State Government to examine
a petition and on the basis of material indicated therein to decide whether
any action in terms of Section 34 is called for. If the State Government
decides to act on the basis of petition filed by any person, it has to examine
D
as to why the person has not availed the remedy of filing an appeal. It is
also necessary to examine whether after a long lapse of time any action ,4

is warranted. In this exercise, filing of petition within a reasonable time is
inbuilt. What would be reasonable time would depend upon the facts of
each case and no straight jacket formula can be adopted or applied.
E
20. There is another statutory requirement under Section 34. The
proviso to Section 34 mandates grant of reasonable opportunity of being
heard to any person who is likely to be affected by the order. These
aspects have been highlighted in Pune Municipal Corporation v. State
F of Maharashtra and Ors., [2007] 5 SCC 211.
21. In view of the aforesaid, the impugned conclusions of the High
Court are not sustainable. Normally, we would have set aside the order
and remanded it to the High Court to decide the matter afresh. But the
learned counsel for respondents l, 2 and 3 on instructions stated that they
G
agree that 3570 sq.mtrs. ofland may be returned to the respondents 1, y·
2 and 3 and development charges and other charges, as payable in law,
shall be paid by the said respondents.
22. In view of the aforesaid statement of learned counsel for the
H
MORADABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. 451
SAURABH JAIN [PASAYAT, J.]
respondents 1, 2 and 3, we dispose of the appeal with the following A
directions:
(1) The appellant authority shall release 3570 sq.mtrs of unutilized
vacant land on payment of development charges and other
charges payable under the Development Act.
B
(2) The respondents 1, 2 and 3 shall not be entitled for any land
beyond 3570 sq. mtrs relatable to the present dispute.
... .)- 23. The appeal is disposed of accordingly with r.o order as to costs .
Contempt Petition 239 of 2005 c
24. In view of disposal of Civil Appeal No.4329of2003, contempt
petition is also disposed of.
RP. Appeal and Contempt Petition disposed of.