Summary
The Court invalidated a demand for the market value of seven tenements that a developer had failed to provide under an urban-land exemption. The developer remained responsible for the exemption conditions despite transferring development rights, but his undertaking to pay could not confer a recovery power absent from the statute. The authority could pursue statutory consequences for breach; it could not treat the unsupported market-value demand as land-revenue arrears.
Issues
- Whether the competent authority could recover the market value of unprovided tenements despite lacking an express statutory power.
- Whether a private development agreement or conditional no-objection certificate relieved the exemption holder of his obligations.
Provisions considered
- Sections 2(d), 20, 21 and 38(4), Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976Confined the competent authority to statutory powers; the remedies for breach did not authorise the impugned market-value demand. (¶¶ 9, 10, 16, 17)
Held
- The water-connection no-objection certificate acknowledged only seven tenements handed over and did not absolve the remaining obligation. Construction on one plot and the failure to withdraw the composite exemption did not discharge its conditions. (¶¶ 11, 12, 13)
- The exemption holder remained responsible under the exemption order. His subsequent private development agreement and communications between the authority and other developers did not transfer that statutory responsibility; inter se disputes remained private matters. (¶¶ 14, 15)
- An undertaking cannot enlarge a statutory authority’s jurisdiction. Although breach could attract withdrawal and the consequences prescribed by the Act, the authority lacked power to demand the market value of the missing tenements. That unsupported demand could not acquire the character of government dues recoverable as land-revenue arrears. (¶¶ 9, 10, 16, 17)
- The jurisdictional objection was a pure question of law on undisputed facts and could be raised for the first time before the Court. The five-percent restriction in Shantistar Builders operated prospectively and did not alter this earlier exemption. (¶¶ 16, 17, 18)
Result
Appeal allowed; High Court order set aside and the impugned market-value demand held beyond statutory power and unsustainable.