Allowed

Sri D Venkatesh Prasad v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC4 Apr 2016WP/3706/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenges an endorsement negating the issuance of a khatha certificate despite betterment tax collection by the BDA. The High Court of Karnataka summarily allowed the petitions, quashed the endorsement, and directed the BDA to issue a no-objection certificate and register the khatha within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

The endorsement at Annexures 'L' and 'M' are quashed. Respondent 2 is directed to issue a 'no objection' for khatha registration within eight weeks.

Sri D Venkatesh Prasad Vs State of Karnataka — Karnataka HC (2016) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 04^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2016

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY

¶6

WRIT PETITION Nos.3706 – 07 OF 2016 (LA - BDA)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

Sri. D. Venkatesh Prasad Aged about 43 years S/o Sri.M.Doraiswamy

¶9

Smt. Sharadambal Aged about 66 years W/o Sri. M. Doraiswamy (1) & (2) are residing at No.443, 65^th Cross 5^th Block, Rajajinagar Bangalore – 560 010

¶10

Smt. M. Anuradha Aged about 36 years D/o Sri. D.Murthy Residing at No.4, 15^th Cross 17^th Main Road J.P.Nagar, 2^nd Phase Bangalore – 560 078

¶11

…PETITIONERS

¶12

¶13

(By Shri Chandrashekar P.V, Advocate)

¶14

AND:

¶15

State of Karnataka Department of Urban Development Vikasa Soudha Dr Ambedkar Veedhi Bangalore – 560 001

¶16

Reptd By its Principal Secretary

¶17

The Bangalore Development Authority Kumara Park West Extension Bangalore – 560 020 Reptd by its Commissioner

¶18

The Spl Land Acquisition officer Bangalore Development Authority Kumara Park West Extension Bangalore – 560 020

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(By Shri Shwetha Krishnappa, Government Pleader for Respondent No.1; Shri M.N.Ramanjaneya Gowda, Advocate for Respondent Nos.2 and 3)

¶21

¶22

These Writ Petitions filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the endorsement dtd.13.1.2016 and endorsement dtd.8.1.2016 issued by R-3 at Annex-L & M. Direct the R-2 to issue no objection and to register khata in the names of petitioners.

¶23

¶24

�� coming on for Preliminary Hearing in ‘B’ Group, this day, the court made the following:

¶25

O R D E R

¶26

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the BDA.

¶27

It is the case of the petitioners that they are owners of lands which are converted for non-agricultural use in land bearing Sy.Nos.10/4P, 12, 14, 16/1A, 16/1B and 16/1C totally measuring 9 acres 30 guntas of Anjanapura village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk.

¶28

It is stated that the lands were converted for residential purpose and a residential layout was formed by one K. Venkatraman, in the name and style of ‘Green Banks Residential Complex’ and the Petitioners 1 and 2 who are mother and son, had jointly purchased Site No.4 formed in land bearing Sy.No.12 measuring East to West 100 + 110/2 feet and North to South 60 feet, under a registered sale deed dated 21.03.2003. Similarly, Petitioner No.3 is said to have

¶29

¶30

purchased Site No.28 measuring East to West 116 feet and North to South 84 feet under a registered sale deed dated 24.09.2012. It transpires that several items of land were notified for acquisition under the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the BDA Act’, for brevity) vide preliminary notification dated 20.03.1999 and a final notification dated 28.08.2000. However, it is the case of the petitioners that no award was passed pursuant to the same, nor possession was taken in view of the residential layout having been formed already in respect of the lands so notified. The land owners had submitted an application to the BDA, with a request to levy betterment tax on the footing that a layout had already been formed. The said request having been placed before the Board, the Board of the BDA is said to have resolved to collect betterment tax at Rs.30/- per sq.ft. and a circular dated 28.03.2002 was issued in this regard. Betterment tax was in fact paid in respect of the sites so formed and thereafter the respective site holders had sought for issuance of a khatha in

¶31

¶32

their favour in respect of the sites. The second respondent had declined to consider their request. Several affected site holders were therefore before this Court in a Writ petition in W.P.No.12239-75/2014 and connected cases. Those petitions were disposed of by an order dated 13.06.2014 directing the BDA to exclude the sites purchased by the petitioners therein from the acquisition proceedings and to assess the properties to betterment tax and to issue Khatha certificates. It transpires that the BDA has acted pursuant to the same and has complied with the directions issued.

¶33

However, insofar as the present petitioners are concerned, an endorsement having been issued negating their claim for issuing a khatha certificate notwithstanding the betterment tax having been collected, the petitioners are before this Court.

¶34

Since the betterment tax has already been collected by the BDA, it would then follow that khatha certificate must be issued in favour of the petitioners. Therefore, the petitions are

¶35

¶36

summarily allowed. The endorsement at Annexures “L” and “M” are quashed. The second respondent is directed to issue a ‘no objection’ to register the khatha in the names of the petitioners in respect of the sites in question and to take further steps as may be necessary, within a period of eight weeks if not

¶37

earlier, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order.

¶38

Sd/JUDGE

¶39

Sri D Venkatesh Prasad v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri D Venkatesh Prasad v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases