GANGAIAH NAIDU Vs. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In all these writ petitions, the question involved is the validity of the imposition of betterment tax and subsequent withdrawal. Therefore, they are taken up for consideration together and disposed off by this common order.

(2.) The petitioners in all these writ petitions are the owners of the sites, which are more particularly described in their respective writ petitions. THE only exception is that petitioner in W.P.5494/06 owns land. THEse sites and land were the subject matter of five notifications issued by the Bangalore Development Authority. THE first notification is in respect of Anjanapura Layout. THE land situated in Anjanapura Village was the subject matter of the said notification. THE preliminary notification was issued on 26.3.1999 and the final notification was issued on 28.8.2000. THE second notification is for Banashankari VI Stage issued by the Bangalore Development Authority. THE land and sites situated in Ganakalu Village are the subject matter of this notification. THE preliminary notification is issued on 1.12.2000 and final notification is issued on 23.8.2001. THE third notification is for further extension of Anajanapura Layout. THE lands which are the subject matter of this notification are situated in Kembathalli. THE preliminary notification is dated 29.3.2001 and the final notification is dated 21.3.2002. THE fourth notification pertains to further extension of Banashankari VI Stage. THE sites and the land situated in Vajrahalli and Gubbarala are the subject matter of this notification. THE preliminary notification is dated 21.11.2002 and final notification is dated 10.9.2003. THE last notification is issued for the further extension of Sir M Vishveshwaraiah Layout. THE subject matter of this notification is the land situated in Herohalli and Giddanakonenahalli. THE preliminary notification is dated 8.4.2003 and final notification is dated 9.9.2003.

(3.) The petitioners in these writ petitions contend that though under the sale deed, they have purchased a portion of the land measured in guntas, they are in actual possession of well-planned sites in a private layout. Some of them have even put up constructions, and are living there with their family. Some of them had challenged the acquisition of their lands/sites on various grounds. Simultaneously, they had also approached the B.D.A. to drop the acquisition proceedings. It was their specific case that when these lands are being acquired by the B.D.A. for the formation of a residential layout in order to distribute the said sites to the needy and poor who cannot afford to purchase sites in the open market, the acquisition is not proper as these petitioners also belong to the same category. When they have purchased the sites, acquisition of their sites would not be in tune with the object of the Act and the very purpose of acquisition would be defeated. THEy also requested the authorities that they are willing to pay betterment charges to B.D.A. as required under law and they want those sites to be given up from acquisition and on payment of betterment charges, they may also be extended the facilities which are extended to the site owners of Bangalore Development Authority Layout. It is their further case that the authorities insisted, unless the writ petitions filed challenging the acquisition are withdrawn, their request would not be considered and that their request would be favourably considered after they withdraw the petitions. Under those circumstances, the petitioners who had filed such writ petitions challenging the acquisition, filed a memo in their respective writ petitions stating the aforesaid facts and sought leave of the Court to withdraw their respective petitions. Accordingly, leave was granted and petitions were withdrawn. After withdrawal of such writ petitions, the authority in its meeting resolved to collect betterment charges from these persons as per their request and to drop these lands from acquisition. It is in pursuance of the said Boards resolution notices were issued to all the petitioners claiming betterment charges at the rate of Rs.30/- per sq.ft. On receipt of such notices, all the petitioners have paid the betterment charges. When they were hoping that everything would be regularised, khata would be made out in their names, tax would be collected and all the facilities would be extended to them, they are served with the impugned notices informing the petitioners that they had no authority to impose such betterment charges and therefore, they are withdrawing the earlier notice and that they would proceed with the acquisition. It is under those circumstances, all the petitioners are before this Court challenging the impugned notices.