Karnataka High Court
Janapriya Engineers Syndicate vs Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike on 21 July, 2008
Author: Ram Mohan Reddy
Bench: Ram Mohan Reddy
...1-
in THE men comrr or KARNATAKA,
DATED THIS THE 2 1st D1f\'Y"OFA
THE HQNBLE M_(>3A=N
WRIT PE'I'I'I'iON._ N0..~ {LE;BM§)
BETWEEN
JANAPRIYA ENG}§.'EEB,S"--SY1NDIC4Af£ZE " '
(nm1A;PR;w;rE 3
NOA78, 121}: Cmss ' ._
WILS(}_N G.aRDEN;'fiANGAiDRE 55002?
REP Bf; rrs LIAISON1.O}7FICF,R Am)
PA HODLER sm:ai_j'sA11+1YANARA3'AN KUMAR.
4- % _ PEITIIONER
(By 3:; ; P SMA_3~II[Ii*IA41*}i, ADV )
«. 'I x H ..... .. "
--a.-1u.u.......
'-- Bi?{b'IiAT'B}&NGA1DRE MAI-IANAGARA PALIKB
. NRSIEQARE
._ B,m'~:<;;aLoRE ~02
.B*;_rrs COMMISSIONIZR.
. _ BOMMANAHALLI SUB IDVISION
BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGAR
PALIKE BOMMANAHALLI
BANGALORE.
3 THE ADMINIS'I'RATOR
BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA
PALIICE )
'?'~
-2-
NR. SQURE
BANGALORE ~02
(By Sri : KNPUTTEGOWDA, ADV 3 _ A A
"mm wan" PETITION IS v9;2§'.¥:.&it3
227 OF "um cowsmunow or INDIA' PRAYENIG TO QUASH
FOLLOWENG: (1) EN12>ORSEME1'~I'£_' D1'. '2s,1;2o9s zssimn mg' .
R2 AT ANX-B.
THIS WRIT PE'}'ITION Qos.»iiNG"QN rfcifi VPREKIMINARY
HEARING (B-GROUP)' _'_1'HiS MADE THE
FOLLGWING: '
for preliminary hearing,
with figs: counsel for the pane' s, the
petition iéi disposed of by this order.
~ §3'I= Thg a builder having purchased 4 acres
V"}a 'zé.d in Sy.No.2E5] 2/314 of Kodichikkan,ahaHx',
ésangalom South Taluk, under a registered sak
deed dgfisd 26.6.2001 and rectification deed dt. 30.12.2002,
5.' fell within the territorial jurisdiction of the Bmhat
Mahanagara Palike (HEMP), puzsuant to the
notification dt. 16.1.2007, appiicd for registration of khata of
the said property, by filing an application dt. 20.12.2007
Annexure-A. It is the allegation of the petitioner that the 2"'
§ :
-3-
responziexltufisst. Revenue Officer of BBM--.?f" 4_
endorsement dt. 28.1.2008 Annexurfrfi u ' ;
of Rs.97,1S,980/~ at the rate
respect of the land *1,74,240" V L'
sqfi: and that on paygzoent of S£ifi1,- acfion
would be taken oveffiizhe _N1Il€x11Ie--A, for
registraizion c>f'i4:}v;.\ata,A"" petitioner, the
Circular V" fi<:$iiienc1ature 'Melpatu
vechchefi" iesued with a View to
generiete ijeoioyemcat of infiastructure in the
areas oak-:;'g ed ysgfmp, at the time of mgstenmg the
e4z.$$eA$smenf of: tax in respect of new properties, in
% v1ew_' A.sec1;ao;§{'i'92~A of the Karnataka Land Revenue
v19.E6'-4, ao'1d i~he provisions of the Karnataka Town and
Act 1961. It is the assertion of the
petitiimer that there is no reference to the provisions of the
Municipal Corporauions Act 1976, for short KMC
K in the exercise of power to impose 'melpatu vechcha". It
is stated that the Circular Amaexuze «-~ 'C' refers to the
proceedings Axmexzure-D of the Administrator which states
3%
-4-
that under Section 465 and 467 of the KMC
the imposition and reoovely own¢.m''6£ "
properties merged into BBMP,
instahnents on the basis of of L'
be spent for pmviding ifidrainage,
electricity, etc., and sp§dd.;£1§:' and that
due to financial vechcha in
20 annual bd It is further stated
that in such demand for
recovery' "6£'- questioned, this court
quashdddé a direction to collect the
same on1L'V§d"--«if thd "fifiyer volunteered. So also, in
V. A_ W.F;f'§o7 D--D..22.8.2000 questioning the demand for
_ recoveIy of ixnpmvezment charges, the 1st
to have given up the said demand,
V . reserved liberty to the lat respondent to
Iixxnflliffi avddcmand after relevant rules were framed under 466 of the Municipal Corporation Act. in
-»WiP.13368/98, clubbed along the other Writ petitions of an were disposed of by a mmmon oxder dated 24.7'. 1998, on the -5- basis of the memo filed by 1st respondent that Sxot compulsoxily impose and oallaect developm§2:i1tV Hence this Writ petition for the following " '4 V' '*1. issue Writ of orA"$si1;1i1a;'TV or" V direction to quash the ..
(i) Endorsemenff T .bt:ar§171g " ""§Ia!:'I)A(KTR/302/07-G8 datcd 28.1.3{} G'8V i;»;su¢d""by"t:;e-'2nd respondent, 'V =No.w;r(5o) PR/23/0'7-08 at.
.7 .11V._2£}O':*._of~~the 1st respondent at Annexurc~C. V' . « (iii: of the 3"! respondent dt. 27.10.2007 ~ :V"vi§i'subjcct No.10':/O7-O8 at Annexult:-D; Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate " V ' writ or order or direction, directing the rcspondentg to register the name of the pcfitioner in the Khata Register Without insisfing for payment of Melpatu Vecha (Betterment charges) as requested in the Application under acknowlcdgemcnt at Am1exurc«~A. L a 'zk -6-
3. Issue any other writ, order or v payment of ceet as this Court deeieis circumstances of the b
3. The petition is opposed "
objections dt. 16.7.2008 of'T;§agonden;s V 1x '3fin:et contending that the p;fope1tyA,V_.sV1 1A'i3_je(:t_V pf petition is situated in an } 'pocket and the Corporation assessed the of the area, for fixm' g the e, fat" of Rs.600/-- for the sq.n1trs; Rs;.4{){}/ -» for the sites -550 sq. mtrs and R3200/-» for the sites. flpte. sq. mtra, as approved by the '~ _ . :'.I}*'j'$=1. "'e)£eVreise of power of the Corporation e§_um;2e ;;'a..%;:1..: 'standing Committee, in their absence. At 231' the statement of objections, it is admitted ~g_ earlier Writ petitions befoxe this Court, the A f_" éfiefporafion took a stand that it would collect the changes framing rules as contemplated by Section 466 of the eat 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 alarger UK extents of immovable properties hitherto : &;-:';','?V;"€'i'1v-";{1"59'r..' having become part of the BBMP pursuant V' in the year 2007 and the reconiéifiiititien Vpf -; Mahanagara Paiike into BBMP, 'neeeesitafeii the' of improvement charges. In"a§idifiofi; it Via. that Section 505 at the KM; A¢:;,""i£;§¢s£s_._me &'s'13r»1P: with the jurisdiction to dischaege land use or development or vvelevelepiaaent plan with the According to the belonging to the petitioner, not as contemplated by the Planning Act, the BBMP is ' _ 3-ugfiiieiéi demanding the payment of fievelofimefli as contemplated under Section 505 of the__VK1\v4C Lastly it is eontended that as the State Govefnxfient and the EDA, not being arrayed as parties, the is liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary' 'S.
4. Having heard the learned counael for the parties, perused plemiggs and the orders impugtwd, the List UK .9...
Sections 466 and 467 of the KMC 3 imposing and demanding lmown as "Meipatu Vechchaf as set'~efit. in Am1ex"ure~B, and Whether the "mspo1:ide_zii,e ebeenee V of the elected and the Standing commieée; 'is to direct the imposition of u 'issue the Circular dt. 7.1 1.200? ?
dispute between the parties that whefie«i£alea.tVijea_1"Vies:ue'e arose for consideration in eariier hefgre this Court, the respondent gave an ' the eflect that the BMP would collect H uses, cmly afier framm' g rules as required by'5"e:a1::§e"(i§) of Section 466 and that the making of these V rules is; pending with the Government since the year 2001. is so, the answer is that the proceeding Annexmze - 'D' " "(if the 1st respondent fofiowed by the issues of the Circular Annexure -'C', leading to the impugned demand Annexure »-- 'B' said to be in exercise of jurisdiction under .18.
Section 466 and 467 of the KMC Act is Arbitrary. " V 2 L'
7. Be that as it may Sectio1:L'r>f '§j:1e.; the Commissioner, subject to ééf Committee, the power to gxpehxxitscs' Q;:;".¢¢§§¢'a"';*g' fi vorks ' as improvement expensacs. CIan{#:_'*{a)"-»9f relates to expenses to be 'of that which is. ificuned or i11c§1"x"II=:W Sections 189, 225, :;.>,27,_ (twig .(}§}of'-aiibsgction (1) of Section 272, Section 283, su'b.gecfionv..(:§V 'a;;;i«._':(2'}"" of Section 323, Sections 332, 33?} ' 376 Cilaiise (b) of Section 466 provides for . * -s)f'i3:§zpmvv<§ifient expenses subject to the rules made 467 provides for the obligation to pay the: impinvfiment expenses, as a charge on the premises in mspe§::!.V_:6f which or for the benefit of which it is incurred, rs¢§§i'erab1e in 20 annual instalments of such amounts as K the Commissioner may in each case determine. The iznprovfimcnt expenaes is Bab}: to be paid by the owner or occupier of the premises of which the expenses are charged LVK
43..
and if in the case of the occupier, the instalments will entsitie hjln to efiect the rent payable by him to the ewe" Hme"r'o;* , e from the owner;
3. in the instant casege adinitied mat' ;e¢t,1pog;es'm:': » declare expenses on certain er hepxevetnettts, as set out in the secticms meefiganeafi "{.a) of Seetion 466 is not applicable. If that ie is clauee
(b) w}:3{:ich_ se'fij§eet$V:fl1e'«rTeeQye1y of improvement expenses, to the of An examinafion of the minutes peoeeedings Axmexme-B of the 1st . * that R3200 cmre-s was spent in the j}'e_et4 ' pmvide water supply, and for other dexqelopx-3.e_1itt 'expenses, the basis and foundation to impose and feeever finom the petitimzer ixnpmvement charges. In Tabsence of specifics over the expenses incurred by the V' list respondent, as development expenses and that too in resfiect of the areas fallen within the larger area of BBMP, pursuant to the notification constituting the said BBMP, the Jflx .12.
figure of RS200 crores expended in the year _ have any nexus or is justification to recover. ._i3npi*ovem:=._xit*' expenses under Section 466 of the 2 iv clause (b) of Section 1 recoveries are for the 1i1 §ely to be incurred. In the fieL"~-not whether expenses were fell beyond the territorial juI_fiSi.'}%t2:fiI)n:3A__0f g BM? nor is it shown 3 fact expended for the pefifiopefis ramng within the territorial jurisdicfieiox ofvBVBMPV,' V. , what is not forthcon;u:a' g is as to the expenses likely to be incurred by the as to entitle it recover the same as .i1i:';317oveii:entAV['V've11aIges, in advance, finm the petifimner. mi any angle, the fallacy in the reasoning of xthe lei Lrespondefit as set out in the proceetiings Annexuzw in the superficial, cursory natme of consideration VA V. fendertaken therein without referenoe to relevant material constituting legal evidence of a fact of incurring expenditure by which the 1st respondent could have exercised his % L OK .14.
expenses is without justification, as a cozxseqtiexztjéeu Circular dated 7.1I.2G07 Annexnrerc and V' demand by endorsement Annexu_:zi:»B' ' unsusfainahie.
In the result, this writ The endorsement dated 7.1I.2007 Annexun;-.-C and £1216 Anncxure-D are quashed. to consider the pm" ' nefs =' 'nvmfl if :efi'ect Iegistraticn of khaa in the nam' 9f the; ' if the appliscaticm. is be with law, in any event . 4, 2 Sd/'L Iudga