HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 25489 of 2025 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. (c) Issue any other suitable order or direction, which this Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Sudeep Harkauli Counsel for Respondent(s) : Aditya Singh Parihar, C.S.C., Jai Bahadur Singh, Suresh C. Dwivedi Praful Wadhwa .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 4 Others .....Respondent(s) 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 2 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. April 2, 2026 NLY WRIC No. 25489 of 2025 3 (Kunal Ravi Singh,J.) (Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.) Digitally signed by :- NAND LAL YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad