LAWS(KAR)-2012-4-41

PURVANKARA PROJECTS LIMITED Vs. URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, BANGALORE

Decided On April 20, 2012
Purvankara Projects Limited Appellant
V/S
Urban Development Department, Bangalore Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In these batch of writ petitions, petitioners are challenging the notification dated 3-2-2010 issued by the State Government through Department of Urban Development, thereby framing rules providing for imposition and recovery of improvement charges. The said rules are framed in exercise of powers conferred under Section 466(b) read with Section 421 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 (for short, 'the Act'). These rules are known as Karnataka Municipal Corporations (Recovery of Improvement Expenses) Rules, 2009 (for short, 'the Rules'). The Rules are published in the Official Gazette on 5-2-2010. They have come into force with effect from 17-1-2007. Pursuant to the Rules framed, the Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike (for short, 'BBMP') has issued a Circular dated 7-2-2011 declaring the improvement expenses to be collected in respect of different properties coming within the jurisdiction of the BBMP by notifying the rate at which such improvement expenses shall be collected at the time of effecting khatha in favour of the applicants. The petitioners in these writ petitions are also aggrieved by the Circular issued and as also the consequential demands made for collection of improvement expenses. Some of the petitioners have also challenged the action initiated by the BBMP to cancel the khatha or to recover the amount of improvement expenses wherever the same has not been collected while effecting khatha. As the main question involved in these writ petitions is with regard to the validity of the Rules, the Circular issued and also the consequential action initiated, all these writ petitions have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. The background of the controversy raised in these cases, stated in nutshell, is that the BBMP has been established by including vast extent of area, which was otherwise outside the jurisdiction of the erstwhile Bangalore Mahanagara Palike. On 7-11-2007, the respondent-BBMP had issued a circular providing for recovery of betterment charges in order to generate funds for improvement of infrastructure in the areas, which were merged and made part of BBMP. The collection of improvement charges was to take place at the time of registering khatha in respect of new properties. This was challenged by filing W.P. No. 5035 of 2008 (Janapriya Engineers Syndicate (India) Private Limited, Bangalore v. Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike, Bangalore and Others,2010 1 KarLJ 80 . By order dated 21-7-2008, this Court allowed the writ petition quashing the circular dated 7-11-2011. The minutes of the proceedings of the BBMP, which disclosed that Rs. 200 crores (Rupees two hundred crores) was spent in the year 1995 to provide water supply and also for other development expenses, that was made the basis and foundation to impose and recover the improvement expenses was also quashed holding that in the absence of specifies regarding the expenses incurred by the BBMP towards development expenses that too in respect of the areas falling within the larger areas of BBMP pursuant to the notification constituting the said BBMP, the figure of Rs. 200 crores (Rupees two hundred crores) expended in the year 1995 cannot have any nexus or provide justification for the recovery of improvement expenses under Section 466 of the Act. It is useful to refer to the observations made in paragraph No. 8 of the said order. It reads as under;

(2.) After this Court passed the above judgment, respondent 1 has issued the impugned notification by framing Rules, which are made to come into force with effect from 17-1-2007 as per sub-rule (3) of Rule 1. The rules are made applicable to the improvement expenses incurred by the Commissioner directly or indirectly for providing basic civic amenities under Section 466(b) of the Act, to persons residing in such localities. Improvement expenses are defined under Section 2(b) to mean such of the 'improvement expenses' incurred by the Commissioner under clause (b) of Section 466 of the Act and also includes expenses pertaining to the following works namely.--

(3.) Property liable for levy of expenses.--Improvement expenses shall be levied and recovered on the properties that are directly or indirectly benefited as a result of the improvement expenses incurred by the Commissioner towards creation of basic infrastructure and for such other works to improve the general living condition of citizens and includes expenses incurred on land newly converted from agriculture use to non-agricultural purposes.