Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:21220-DB Court No. - 21 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 36407 of 2024 Petitioner :- Omji Timber Merchant Respondent :- State Of Up And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vivek Chaturvedi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Vibhanshu Vaibhav Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J. Hon'ble Anish Kumar Gupta,J. 1. The petitioner has prayed for quashing of demand notice dated 8.8.2024 issued by Aligarh Development Authority (for short 'ADA'), in ignorance of law laid down by Supreme Court in Mathura Vrindavan Development Authority and Another vs. Rajesh Sharma and Others; 2023 SCC Online SC 530 and the G.O. dated 6.12.2023 and for a direction to the respondent-Authority to decide the petitioner's application for sanction of map. 2. It appears that the petitioner applied for sanction of a building plan. A demand notice dated 8.8.2024 was issued to the petitioner inter alia imposing Rs. 5,59,040/- towards sub divisional charges. A separate demand of the same date was issued demanding Rs. 19,830/- towards labour cess. Aggrieved to the above extent, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 27775 of 2024 before this Court. It was the specific case of the petitioner that sub divisional charges and labour cess could not be imposed in view of the judgment of Supreme Court in Mathura Vrindavan Development Authority (supra). The writ petition was disposed of by order dated 27.8.2024, directing ADA to take fresh decision in the light of the said judgment. It seems that when no decision was taken in this behalf, the petitioner filed Contempt Application No. 6559 of 2024, but it came to be rejected on the ground that no positive step had been taken by ADA to execute the demand notice and therefore, contempt is not made out. According to the petitioner, ADA did not take any decision in pursuance of the previous order of this Court and since its building plan is not being approved on account of the demand notice dated 8.8.2024, therefore, the petitioner is not left with any remedy, except to approach this Court by way of the instant petition. 3. On 13.11.2024, the following order was passed: - "1. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the sub-division charges and certain other charges being demanded by the impugned notice dated 08.08.2024 is in the teeth of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Mathura Vrindavan Development Authority and another vs. Rajesh Sharma and others, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 530. Further contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that on a previous occasion in Writ Petition No. 27775 of 2024 (Omji Timber Merchant vs. State of U.P. and 4 others) filed by the petitioner challenging the same notice, the writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the Development Authority to take a decision within three weeks keeping in mind the judgment of the Apex Court. The said order was served on the Development Authority on 31.08.2024 but it had failed to withdraw the notice. 2. Sri Vibhanshu Vaibhav, learned counsel for the Development Authority seeks time to obtain instructions as to whether the Development Authority is ready to withdraw the impugned notice and to issue circular to ensure that the officers of the Development Authority do not demand any charge, which has not been held to be valid by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment. 3. Put up this matter as fresh on 04.12.2024." 4. On matter being taken up today, Sri A.K. Yadav, learned counsel for the ADA, has placed on record an order dated 11.2.2025 passed by ADA cancelling the demand notice dated 8.8.2024. Liberty has been reserved to re-calculate the amount. 5. It is not disputed that as laid down by Supreme Court in Mathura Vrindavan Development Authority (supra), the Development Authority cannot charge sub divisional charges. In such circumstances, the ADA is restrained from raising any fresh demand in respect of sub divisional charges. However, the issue relating to levy of labour cess has not been dealt with by the Supreme Court in the said judgment and therefore, we grant liberty to the Development Authority to examine the plea of the petitioner in respect thereof. While doing so, the ADA shall take into consideration the amount of Rs. 2,72,642/- said to have been deposited by the petitioner on 16.8.2024. The said exercise shall be carried out within three weeks from today. 6. The petition stands disposed of accordingly. (Anish Kumar Gupta, J.) (Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.) Order Date :- 14.2.2025 Jaideep/- Digitally signed by :- JAIDEEP BANERJEE High Court of Judicature at Allahabad