Statutory limits on development charges bar extra levy for internal community buildings when land is transferred free of cost.

A statutory scheme requiring a colonizer either to construct schools, hospitals, community centres and similar facilities at its own cost or to transfer the earmarked land free of cost did not permit an additional levy for those internal community buildings as part of external development charges. The court noted that internal and external development works were dealt with separately, and there was no express authority in the Act, Rules or licence agreement for the monetary demand once land had been transferred free of cost. Payment under protest did not amount to waiver or acquiescence because the payer consistently objected to the levy and acted under threat of licence cancellation. The demand was therefore unsustainable, and the amount paid was to be adjusted according to law.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the demand for Rs. 61,000 per gross acre towards internal community buildings could be recovered as part of external development charges under the governing statute, rules and licence agreement; (ii) Whether payment made by the appellant under protest amounted to waiver or acquiescence.

Issue (i): Whether the demand for Rs. 61,000 per gross acre towards internal community buildings could be recovered as part of external development charges under the governing statute, rules and licence agreement.

Analysis: The statutory scheme required the colonizer either to construct schools, hospitals, community centres and other community buildings at its own cost or to transfer the land earmarked for those purposes free of cost to the Government if so desired. The provisions governing development charges dealt with internal development works and external development works separately, and neither the Act nor the Rules nor the licence agreement authorized a further monetary levy for construction of internal community buildings once the land had been transferred free of cost. The demand sought to treat internal community buildings as external development charges, but the language of the statute was plain and contained no basis for such an addition.

Conclusion: The demand was not authorized by the statute or the licence agreement and was illegal, unjustified and unreasonable.

Issue (ii): Whether payment made by the appellant under protest amounted to waiver or acquiescence.

Analysis: Waiver requires a voluntary and intentional relinquishment of a known right, and acquiescence cannot be inferred where the payer objects to the demand and pays only under protest and under threat of cancellation of licence. The correspondence showed continued protest against the levy, so there was no conscious abandonment of rights.

Conclusion: The plea of waiver and acquiescence failed.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, the impugned demand could not be sustained, and the amount already paid against that demand was directed to be adjusted in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute expressly permits only transfer of land free of cost or construction at the colonizer's own cost, the authority cannot impose an additional monetary obligation for the same community facilities in the absence of clear statutory authorization.

---