M/S Srivathsa Constructions Pvt Ltd vs Bbmp on 21 August, 2014

[Cites 1, Cited by 1]

Karnataka High Court

M/S Srivathsa Constructions Pvt Ltd vs Bbmp on 21 August, 2014

Bench: Dilip B Bhosale

                               1


        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

            DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF AUGUST 2014

                              BEFORE

          THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DILIP B BHOSALE

                  W.P.NO.48168/2011 (LB-BMP)

BETWEEN

M/S SRIVATHSA CONSTRUCTIONS PVT LTD
A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT A 603
KUMAR I LIFE, DEVARABASINHALLI
BANGALORE 560 103
REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
B SATISH S/O SRI V MADHUSUDANA RAO
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS                        ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI TRIVENI P C, ADV.,)

AND

1.    BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE
      N R SQUARE, BANGALORE 560 002
      REP BY ITS COMMISSIONER

2.    THE JOINT DIRECTOR (TOWN PLANNING NORTH)
      B.B.M.P, N R SQUARE, BANGALORE 560 002

3.    STATE OF KARNATAKA
      BY ITS SECRETARY
      URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
      4TH FLOOR, VIKAS SOUDHA
      AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE         ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI NITHISH, ADV., FOR SRI K V NARASIMHAN, ADV., FOR R1 & 2;

SMT NILOUFER AKBAR, AGA FOR R3) 2 THIS W.P. FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE DEMAND FOR PAYMENT OF RS.10,65.370/- IN THE COMMUNICATION DTD.16.11.11 AT ANNEX-A ISSUED BY THE R2 AND ETC., THIS W.P. COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

PC:

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The only prayer made in the writ petition reads thus:

"i) Issue Writ of Certiorari to quash the demand for payment of Rs.10,65,370/- in the communication bearing No. JDTP (U) / LP / 148 / 2010-11 dated 16.11.2011 at Annexure-

A issued by the 2nd Respondent; and"

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset invited my attention to the judgment of this Court dated 21st January 2011, by which a group of writ petitions came to be disposed of bearing writ petition No.25221/2010 with connected writ petitions, and submitted that in terms of the said judgment, the impugned demand deserves to be set-aside.

3. Having confronted with this, learned counsel for the Corporation fairly states that the Corporation did not have power to make the impugned demand. He also invited my attention to the order passed by this court dated 8.2.2012 on I.A.No.1/2012. The order reads thus:

"In view of the order of stay already granted, the construction plan sanctioned as requested by the petitioner cannot be withheld by the respondent-Corporation on the ground of a non-payment of amount demanded towards 10% market value of the project area. Hence, petitioner is entitled to seek for a direction to respondent for issue of sanction plan, if all other requirements are satisfied.

Accordingly, IA-1/2012 is allowed. Respondent-Corporation is directed to issue sanction plan to the petitioner, if all other requirements are satisfied."

4. Keeping the order dated 8.2.2012 in view and considering the submission of learned counsel for the corporation based on the judgment of this Court dated 21st January 2011, in the group of writ petitions, these writ petitions are allowed. The impugned demand for deduction of Rs.10,65,370/- vide communication dated 16.11.2011, is accordingly set-aside. It is needless to mention that the 4 petitioner is entitled to seek to issue of sanctioned plan only after all other requirements are satisfied.

With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of.

Sd/-

JUDGE Ia

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court