Charitable exemption from development charges upheld where religious and public welfare use met the governing fee framework.

A charitable society running a temple and cremation site challenged development charge and process fee demands for sanctioned construction, arguing that Section 53 of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973, the 2014 development-fee framework, and income-tax registrations effective from 01.04.2014 entitled it to exemption. The Court noted that the plan was sanctioned while registration applications were pending, but the later retrospective charitable registration and the governing government orders contemplated exemption for religious and charitable bodies engaged in public welfare without profit motive. On that basis, the demand notices and rejection order were held unsustainable, and exemption had to be reconsidered under the applicable rules.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner society was entitled to exemption from development charge and process fee for the sanctioned construction in view of Section 53 of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973, the 2014 development fee framework, and the income-tax registrations granted with effect from 01.04.2014; and whether the demand notices and rejection order could be sustained.

Analysis: The society was a charitable body engaged in maintaining a temple and cremation site, and its plan for construction was sanctioned on 17.11.2014. Its applications for registration under the charitable income-tax provisions were pending when the plan was sanctioned, but the exemption under the Income-tax Act was later granted with effect from 01.04.2014. The record also showed that the governing development-fee regime and the relevant government orders contemplated exemption for religious and charitable institutions carrying on public charitable work without profit motive. In that setting, the demand raised by the development authority and the later refusal to extend the exemption were inconsistent with the applicable legal framework and the admitted charitable status of the petitioner.

Conclusion: The demand notices and rejection order were unsustainable, and the petitioner was held entitled to consideration of exemption in accordance with the governing rules and the income-tax registrations with retrospective effect.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded, the impugned orders were set aside, and the matter was sent back for a fresh decision by the Vice Chairman, Saharanpur Development Authority within six weeks.

---