M/S. Valmark Developers Pvt Ltd vs State Of Karnataka on 22 October, 2020

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

M/S. Valmark Developers Pvt Ltd vs State Of Karnataka on 22 October, 2020

Bench: S.R.Krishna Kumar

                           1




IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU

     DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF OCTOBER 2020

                        BEFORE

     THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

        WRIT PETITION No.32457 OF 2015(BDA)

BETWEEN:

1.     M/S. VALMARK DEVELOPERS PVT.LTD.,
       OFFICE AT NO. 133/1,
       THE RESIDENCY, 10TH FLOOR
       RESIDENCY ROAD, BENGALURU.
       REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR
       SRI. MAHAVEERGULECHA
       S/O. TEJAJGULECHA
       AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS.

2.    SRI. MAHAVEER GULECHA
      S/O. TEJRAJGULECHA
      AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
      O/AT NO. 133/1, THE RESIDENCY, 10TH FLOOR
      RESIDENCY ROAD, BENGALURU.
                                           ...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. FARAH FATHIMA, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.     STATE OF KARNATAKA
       REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
       DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT
       VIDHANASOUDHA
       BENGALURU - 560 001.

2.     BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
       TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING SECTION
       CHOWDAIAH ROAD
       KUMARA PARK WEST
       BENGALURU - 560 002.
       REPRESENTED BY URBAN PLANNING MEMBER.
                                      ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. KIRAN KUMA, HCGP FOR -R-1
 SRI. G.S. KANNUR, SR.COUNSEL FOR
 SRI. M.V. CHAATI, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)
                                2




     THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
RESOLUTION BEARING NO. 91/2015 DATED: 16.06.2015 FOR
IMPOSITION OF 5% (GUIDE LINE VALUE) OF PROPERTY
TOWARDS SURGE CHARGE PASSED BY THE R-2 AUTHORITIES,
AS SAME IS HIGHLY ILLEGAL ARBITRARY AND WITHOUT
AUTHORITY OF LAW (ANNEXUE-A)

    THIS W.P. COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B'
GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

                            ORDER

Heard the learned counsel for petitioners and Sri.G.S.Kannur, learned senior counsel appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri.Kiran Kumar, learned HCGP for respondent No.2 and perused the material on record.

2. Learned HCGP has filed a Memo dated 22.10.2010 in the connected writ petition namely, W.P.No.30790/2015 producing a copy of the letter issued by the Under Secretary to Government, Urban Development Department stating that the Government Order dated 21.12.2012 and subsequent Government Order dated 07.05.2015 are declared as 'not being in force'. The said memo is placed on record in the aforesaid writ petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the light of the said Memo of even date to the effect that the Government Orders are not in force, the impugned letter at Annexure-B dated 02.07.2015 insofar as it relates to the demand made at Sl.No.7 and the impugned Resolution vide Annexure-A dated 16.06.2015 deserve to be quashed.

4. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I pass the following:

ORDER

(i) The petition is hereby allowed.

(ii) The impugned letter at Annexure-B dated 02.07.2015 insofar as it relates to the Demand made at Sl.No.7 in a sum of Rs.7,46,88,159/- and the impugned Resolution vide Annexure-A dated 16.06.2015 passed by respondent No.1 are hereby quashed.

(iii) However, liberty is reserved in favour of respondent No.1 to take such steps as available in accordance with law.

Sd/-

JUDGE Srl.

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court