Summary
Landowners seeking restoration of acquired land could not avoid development charges merely because their particular parcel had not been plotted or allotted. Development had to be assessed across the acquired scheme, where the authority had provided infrastructure. However, the quantified demand had been issued without a hearing and was set aside, leaving the authority free to communicate lawful acquisition and development charges and the owners free to pursue any available 2013 Act remedy.
Issues
- Whether restoration charges depended on development of the individual parcel rather than the acquired area.
- Whether the quantified demand could stand without an opportunity of hearing.
Provisions considered
- Section 17(1), proviso, Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973Restoration of unutilised acquired land required repayment of acquisition charges with prescribed interest and development charges incurred; infrastructure across the acquired land was relevant. (¶¶ 5, 9)
Held
- The statement that the owners’ land had not been planned or allotted meant that it had not been plotted; it did not negate development of the acquired scheme. Roads, electricity, water and sewer infrastructure supported liability for development charges. (¶ 9–10)
- Although the High Court’s rejection of development-charge liability was erroneous, the demand quantification could not stand because the owners had received no hearing. A lawful fresh communication remained permissible. (¶ 11)
- The Court left open any remedy available to the owners under the 2013 land-acquisition legislation, without adjudicating entitlement to that relief. (¶ 11)
Result
Appeal allowed against the finding excluding development charges. Demand dated 29 July 2011 separately set aside for want of hearing, with liberty to communicate lawful acquisition and development charges; owners’ available 2013 Act remedies preserved.