JANAPRIYA ENGINEERS SYNDICATE (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE Vs. BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE, BANGALORE AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Though the petition is listed for preliminary hearing, with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, the petition is heard and finally disposed of by this order.

(2.) The petitioner, a builder having purchased 4 acres of converted land in Sy. No. 25/2/3/4 of Kodichikkanahalli, Begur Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, under a registered sale deed dated 26-6-2001 and rectification deed dated 30-12-2002, which fell within the territorial jurisdiction of the Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike (BBMP), pursuant to the notification dated 16-1-2007, applied for registration of katha of the said property, by filing an application dated 20-12-2007 Annexure-A. It is the allegation of the petitioner that the 2nd respondent-Assistant Revenue Officer of BBMP issued an endorsement dated 28-1-2008 Annexure-B demanding payment of Rs. 97,15,980.00 at the rate of Rs. 600.00 per sq. mtr. in respect of the land measuring 16193.30 sq. mtrs. or 1,74,240 sq.ft. and that on payment of the said sum, further action would be taken over the application, Annexure-A, for registration of katha. According to the petitioner, the circular Annexure-C with the nomenclature 'melpatu vechcha' (betterment charge) is issued with a view to generate funds for improvement of infrastructure in the areas merged into the BBMP, at the time of registering the katha and assessment of tax in respect of new properties, in view of the Sec. 192-A of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 and the provisions of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961. It is the assertion of the petitioner that there is no reference to the provisions of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 (for short, 'KMC Act), in the exercise of power to impose "melpatu vechcha". It is stated that the circular Annexure-C refers to the proceedings Annexure-D of the Administrator which states that under Sections 465 and 467 of the KMC Act empowers the imposition and recovery from owners of immovable properties merged into BBMP, improvement charges in 20 instalments on the basis of estimate of the amount likely to be spent for providing roads, underground drainage, electricity, etc., and after spending the said sum, and that due to financial crunch, the recovery of melpatu vechcha in 20 annual instalments, would be remote. It is further stated that in W.P. No. 13368 of 1998 when a similar such demand for recovery of melpatu vechcha, was questioned, this Court quashed the demand and issued a direction to collect the same only if the tax payer volunteered. So also, in W.P. No. 16617 of 2002, dated 22-8-2000 questioning the demand for imposition and recovery of improvement charges, the 1st respondent is said to have given up the said demand, whence this Court reserved liberty to the 1st respondent to make a demand after relevant rules were framed under Sec. 466 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act. In W.P. No. 13368 of 1998, clubbed along the other writ petitions of on were disposed of by a common order dated 24-7-1998, on the basis of the memo filed by 1st respondent that it will not compulsorily impose and collect development charges. Hence this writ petition for the following reliefs:

(3.) The petition is opposed by filing statement of objections dated 16-7-2008 of respondents 1 to 3 inter alia contending that the property, subject-matter of the petition is situated in an undeveloped revenue pocket and the Corporation assessed the cost of development of the area, for fixing the improvement charges, at the rate of Rs. 600.00 for the sites measuring more than 120 sq. mtrs; Rs. 400.00 for the sites measuring more than 60 sq. mtrs. and Rs. 200.00 for the sites measuring upto 60 sq. mtrs., as approved by the Administrator in exercise of power of the Corporation Council and Standing Committee, in their absence. At paragraph 6 of the statement of objections, it is admitted that in earlier writ petitions before this Court, the Corporation took a stand that it would collect the charges after framing rules as contemplated by Sec. 466 of the KMC Act and that the matter is pending before the Government for suitable amendments to the Act and the framing of rules since the year 2001. It is stated that in view of a larger extents of immovable properties hitherto revenue areas, having become part of the BBMP pursuant to the notification in the year 2007 and the reconstitution of the Bangalore Mahanagara Palike into BBMP, has necessitated the recovery of improvement charges. In addition, it is contended that Sec. 505 of the KMC Act, invests the BBMP with the jurisdiction to discharge duties as regards land use or development plan or where there is no development plan with the concurrence of the Planning Authority. According to the respondents, the lands belonging to the petitioner, not approved by the Planning Authority as contemplated by the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, the BBMP is justified in imposing and demanding the payment of development charges as contemplated under Sec. 505 of the KMC Act. Lastly it is contended that as the State Government and the BDA, not being arrayed as parties, the petition, is liable to be dismissed for non joinder of necessary parties.