B KRISHNA BHAT Vs. BANGATORE DEVETOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) the petitioners in these cases have sought for a mandamus directing rcspondcnl-1-ban- gatore devetopment authority (B.D.A.) to- refund to the petitioners all the amounts illegally collected by them by way of taxes, cesses, fee etc., Relating to the vacant lands and buildings and also for a direction to the B.D.A. to stop collection of taxes, cesses, fee etc., On such vacant land and buildings. The petitioners have also sought for additional reliefs in the nature of a declaration that the B.D.A. has no authority of law conferred under the bangatore devetopment authority Act, 1976 ('the act' for short) to levy, assess or recover property tax and other taxes from the concerned members of the public and for a declaration that Section 29 of the act is ultra vires, unconstitutional and void and for a declaration that Section 29 of the act cannot be enforced by the B.D.A. for the purpose of levy, assessment, imposition and recovery of properly tax.

(2.) all the 17 petitioners are rate-payers and owners of sites which are situated in I phase, vishwabharathi housing complex, girinagar, bangatore. Not only as owners of sites but also as persons interested in furthering public cause and not as busy bodies, they have approached this court through public interest action. Their grievance is that the B.D.A. has made illegal exaction of taxes, cesses, fee etc., As described in the annexures to the writ petitions. The petitioners submitted representations to the B.D.A. asking for refund of the amounts recovered by the B.D.A. according to the petitioners, the B.D.A. is not empowered to collect any such taxes, cesses or fee from the petitioners under law and that the B.D.A. does not derive any power under Section 29 of the act to make such an exaction.

(3.) the case of the petitioners is that there was no valid notification made under Section 29 of the act and even if such a notification was there, the mandatory Provisions of sections 103 to 106 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976, have not been foltowed and applied by the B.D.A. the notifications issued by the government under Section 29 of the act are for a duration of 5 years or until the areas arc handed over to the corporation of the city of bangatore, whichever is earlier. It is alleged that in some cases notifications have not at all been issued and in some cases the notifications issued by the government have expired by efflux of time and no further notifications under Section 29 of the act were subsequently issued and, therefore, in the absence of such notifications, the B.D.A. has no power to levy any of the taxes, cesses and fee. It is staled that in writ pctilion Nos. 7912 to 7914 of 1986, the levy of taxes and fee was challenged and the writ pctitions arc altowed on merils on 14-11-1986 holding that thc B.D.A. had no aulhorily under law to colled taxcs from the pelilioncrs in ihosc wril petitions. In the said wril pclilions, it was further held, according to the pclitioncrs, that in the absence of a valid notification as contcmplalcd under Section 29 of the Act, the B.D.A. has no power to collect the said laxcs, cesses and fee from the petitioners and the demand nolice issued by the B.D.A. was held to be wilhoul the aulhorily of law. It appears that thereafter the B.D.A. filed civil pctition Nos. 428 to 430 of 1987 for review of the order passed by this court on 14-11-1986 in wril pelilion Nos. 7912 to 7914 of 1986. It is stated that the said civil pclilions were rcjccled by order dated 12-11-1987 at the admission stage and, thcrcforc, the order passed in the said writ petitions is binding on the B.D.A. since the B.D.A. is conlinuing to demand and collecl laxes, cesses and fee from the members of the public and also from the pelilioncrs, they arc aggrieved and, thereforc, have approached this court for legal redress.