Karnataka High Court
M/S Meenakshi Estates vs The State Of Karnataka on 11 July, 2018
Author: Aravind Kumar
Bench: Aravind Kumar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JULY, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR
WRIT PETITION No.23999/2018(GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
M/S MEENAKSHI ESTATES
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER ,
SRI KUNCHAKURI YADAIAH,
SON OF LATE K. LAXMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
NO 50, KRISHNA NORTH WOODS,
CHOKKANAHALLI ROAD,
OPPOSITE SOBHA CITY
R.K. HEGDE NAGAR,
THANISANDRA MAIN ROAD,
YELAHANKA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH
BENGALURU - 560108
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. FAYAZ SAB B.G., ADV.,)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF HOME,
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BENGALURU - 560001
2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
& DIRECTOR GENERAL, FIRE FIGHTING AND
EMERGENCY SERVICE DEPARTMENT
NO 1, ANNASWAMI MUDALIYAR ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560042
2
3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
STATE OF KARNATAKA FIRE AND EMERGENCY SERVICES,
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
BANNERGHATTA ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560076
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. V. SREENIDHI, AGA)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE
ENTIRE RECORDS PERTAINING TO THE CASE OF THESE
PETITIONER AND QUASH THE IMPUGNED DEMAND NOTICE
DATED 09.05.2018 WHEREIN THE PETITIONER HEREIN WAS
CALLED UPON TO PAY THE CHARGES OF RS.50/- PER SQUARE
METERS TO A LAND MEASURING 35160 SQ.MTS AND DEMANDED
TO PAY A TOTAL SUM OF RS.17,58,000/- WITHIN SEVEN DAYS
EITHER THROUGH CHEQUE/DD OR E-PAYMENT, SUCH DEMAND
IS CONTRARY TO THE PROVISIONS OF LAW AND THE SAID
DEMAND IS WITHOUT ANY BASIS, WHICH IS PRODUCED
HEREWITH FOR THE KIND PERUSAL OF THIS HON'BLE COURT
AND MARKED AS ANNEXURE-L ISSUED BY THE SECOND
RESPONDENT AS THE SAME IS ILLEGAL, ARBITRARY,
CAPRICIOUS AND PASSED WITHOUT APPLICATION OF MIND.
THIS WRIT PETITION IS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Though the matter is listed for Preliminary Hearing, by consent of learned Advocates, it is taken up for final disposal.
2. Heard Sri. Fayaz Sab B.G., learned counsel appearing for petitioner and Sri. V. Sreenidhi, learned 3 Additional Government Advocate, appearing for respondents.
3. Petitioner has sought for the following reliefs:-
(i) to quash the impugned Demand
Notice bearing No.GBC(1)125/2018, dated
09.05.2018 wherein the petitioner herein was called upon to pay the charges of Rs.50/- per Square Meters to a land measuring 35160 Sq.
Mts. and demanded to pay a total sum of
Rs.17,58,000/- within seven days either
through Cheque/DD or E-payment, such
demand is contrary to the provisions of law and the said demand is without any basis, which is produced herewith for the kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court and marked as Annexure-L issued by the Second Respondent as the same is illegal, arbitrary, capricious and passed without application of mind.
(ii) to declare that the petitioner is not liable to make payment of charges of Rs.50/- per Square Meters to a land measuring 35160 Sq. Mts. and demanded to pay a total sum of Rs.17,58,000/- within seven days either through Cheque/DD or E-payment for obtaining 4 No Objection Certificate from the second respondent, in the interest of justice and equity.
4. Petitioner has entered into a joint development agreement in respect of property bearing Municipal/Corporation Khata No.2834/81/2A, 81/2B, measuring 108 guntas which is equivalent to 1,17,612 Sq. ft. or 35160 Sq. Mtrs. situated at Rachenahalli village, K.R. Puram Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk, Bengaluru, falling under the Bruhath Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (for short 'BBMP') limits, for the purposes of putting up construction of residential plots. Petitioner also claims to have obtained order of conversion from the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner by order dated 16.12.2017 Annexures-G1 to G3 and all the lands belonging to the owners have been amalgamated and amalgamated/consolidated Khata has been issued by BBMP on 14.03.2018 Annexure-H. The Certificate and Assessment Extract of the said property has been 5 produced at Annexures-J and K respectively reflects the name of the owners as joint Khata holders.
5. In order to put up constructions, petitioner is said to have submitted a plan to the BBMP for the purposes of which NOC issued by respondent No.3 required to be filed or furnished. As such, petitioner has sought for NOC from respondent Nos.2 and 3 for which a Demand Notice dated 09.05.2018 Annexure-L has been issued calling upon the petitioner to pay Rs.50/- per Sq. Mtrs. in respect of land measuring 35160 Sq. Mtrs. namely a demand for Rs.17,58,000/- has been raised on petitioner and petitioner has been called upon to pay said amount within seven days. Being aggrieved by the same, petitioner is before this Court contending that said demand is arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the provisions of Karnataka Fire Force Act.
6. Learned counsel Sri. Fayaz Sab B.G., appearing for the petitioner would submit that on account of building having not been constructed, question of 6 payment of amount demanded under the impugned notice would not arise and only on completion of construction of building, said amount could have been demanded or was required to be paid by petitioner and not before completion of construction. Hence, he prays for quashing of the impugned Demand Notice or in the alternate to direct respondents-authorities to accept 25% of the amount demanded thereunder with an undertaking from the petitioner that balance amount would be paid on completion of construction of building.
7. Per contra, learned AGA would defend the impugned Demand Notice.
8. Perusal of the impugned notice would disclose that in respect of multistoried building or high-rise building, a sum of Rs.50/- per Sq. Mtr. is required to be deposited by petitioner as per Government Order bearing No.OE/196/KAS-2017 dated 27.10.2017 and Notification No.HD-33-SFB-2011 dated 07.07.2011 with respondent 7 Nos.2 and 3 who are the authorities who would issue NOC for the building to enable the applicants like the petitioner to put up construction. Said demand for payment is in consonance with the extant Notification. Merely because petitioner is yet to put up construction would not be the basis on which demand for payment can be deferred inasmuch as respondent Nos.2 and 3 would be the service providers in case of any fire mishap or accident and as such before issuing NOC to a building, they are required to ensure that builder has provided for all safety measures and respondent Nos.2 and 3 being authorities possessed with expertise would decide the safety measures in case of fire accident. Thus, the services that may be rendered by respondents-authority namely respondent Nos.2 and 3 for which the demand has been raised for payment for issuance of NOC cannot be construed or held as arbitrary, illegal and without jurisdiction.
8
9. In that view, this Court does not find any good ground to entertain this writ petition. Hence, writ petition is hereby rejected.
However, petitioner is granted three weeks time to pay the amount, if not already paid.
SD/-
JUDGE PMR