KRISHNABHAT B Vs. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In these petitions filed by the petitioners, the facts and questions of law that fall for consideration being common, they are disposed of by the following order.

(2.) The petitioners are all owners of sites in what is known as Vishwabharathi Housing Complex situated in Banashan- kari III Stage, except the petitioner in second of the writ petitions who is residing in the Industrial Subarb, Rajajinagar II Stage. They have asserted that Banashankari III Stage or the Industrial Subarb of Rajajinagar has not been handed ever to the Bangalore City Corporation.- They have further alleged that the Bangalore Development Authority has been collecting house or property tax, vacant land tax and other taxes and cesses from the petitioners. The petitioners contend that Notification dated 14th May, 1981 issued by the Government, gazetted on 21st May 1981 (Annexure-A) in exercise of its power under Section 29 of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'the B.D.A. Act') expired three years after it was published. In such circumstances, power exercised by the Corporation which stood transferred to the Bangalore Development Authority and the corresponding authorities under the B.D.A. Act ceased to be operative and therefore the demand notices issued to the petitioners were clearly without the authority of law. It is also urged by the petitioners that the assessment of tax by the B.D.A. in the areas covered by the Notification issued by the Government under Section 29 of the B.D.A. Act is clearly without the authority of law as the procedure which are mandatory under Sections 104 105, 106 and 107 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporations Act') has not been followed in assessing the petitioners for property tax and other cesses due thereon.

(3.) The respondent-Bangalore Development Authority filed objections on 3-12-1986. It therein contended that the Government had issued Notification under Section 29 of the B D.A. Act for the areas in question even after the Notification dated 14th May 1981 had lapsed by passage of time; and that the B D.A. had followed the procedure prescribed under Sections 103 to 106 of the Corporations Act before collecting the taxes, fee or cesses from the petitioners in respect of their property. It is also submitted that under Section 29 of the B.D.A Act it is only the powers exercised by the Corporation which may be exercised by the respondent and that has nothing to do with the procedural aspect of the matter (vide para 4 of the statement of objections) under the relevant provisions of the Corporations Act. The same has been jeiterated in para 7 of the Statement of objections that it need not follow the procedure under Sections 103 to 106 of the Corporations Act before levying or collecting the tax or any other fees.