Court No. - 29 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 20774 of 2025 Petitioner :- Mohammad Hashim Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Nikhil Kumar,Pritam Kumar Singh Patel Counsel for Respondent :- Anand Prakash Paul,C.S.C. Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J. Hon'ble Vinod Diwakar,J. 1. Heard Shri Nikhil Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner; learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State respondents, and Shri A.P. Paul, learned counsel for Azamgarh Development Authority. 2. The instant writ petition has been preferred with a prayer to quash the impugned orders dated 01.12.2023 and 16.06.2025 passed by the Secretary, Azamgarh Development Authority, respondent no.3. It is further prayed to command the respondent no.3 to refund the excess amount of Rs.32,86,109/- forthwith deposited by the petitioner on the illegal demand of respondent no.3 along with interest levied. 3. At the very outset, learned counsel for the Development Authority raised an objection qua maintainability of the instant writ petition on the premise that, as the petitioner has raised certain constructions contrary to the plan initially approved, the notice was issued thereafter. He submits that the petitioner has moved an application for compounding, which was processed in accordance with the building by-laws approved by the Board of Development Authority. Later on, the Authority has raised demands, and the petitioner has requested that the Authority provides easy installment. He submits that the petitioner again committed a default in paying the installment. In this backdrop, the impugned orders have been passed, which are sustainable in the eyes of the law, and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgement passed by the Supreme Court in Mathura Vrindavan Development Authority and another vs. Rajesh Sharma and other AIR 2023 SC 2957, wherein, the Supreme Court has settled that demand of Authority pertaining to permit fee, inspection fee, stacking fee, strengthening fee, inspection fee, subdivision fee, development fee is impermissible under Sub Section 2-A of Section 15 of the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act 1973. Later on, the same has also been followed by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ C No.10047 of 2024 (Smt. Rekha Jaiswal and another vs. State of U.P. and others), which was allowed, and the matter was relegated to the Authority. In this backdrop, learned counsel for the petitioner has confined his prayer that as far as the compounding charges are concerned, he has no objection to the same but so far as the other charges are concerned, they are demanded contrary to the mandate in Mathura Vrindavan (supra), therefore, the impugned orders are unsustainable. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the records, we are of the opinion that the action taken by the respondent authority is in teeth of the order passed by the Supreme Court in Mathura Vrindavan (supra). The matter is relegated to the Competent/Respondent Authority to revisit the claim of the petitioner and pass a reasoned and speaking order in the light of the judgement and order passed by the Supreme Court in Mathura Vrindavan (supra). Suffice it to indicate that the orders impugned would be subject to the outcome of the fresh decision taken by the Authority. 6. The writ petition is disposed of. Order Date :- 7.7.2025 A. Pandey Digitally signed by :- ANAND PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad