Allowed

Sri T Sudhakar v. Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike

Karnataka HC23 Feb 2022WP/14183/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed a writ petition filed by a property owner challenging a demand notice for 10% plot area park and open space development charges. Relying on a coordinate Bench order that quashed similar demands, the Court granted interim relief by quashing the endorsement and noted the issue.

What did the court decide?

The impugned endorsement dated 22.2.2016 issued by the 2nd respondent is hereby quashed.

Sri T Sudhakar Vs Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR WRIT PETITION NO.14183/2016(LB-BMP)

¶6

BETWEEN

¶7

SRI T SUDHAKAR S/O BHASKAR CHOUDARY AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/AT SY NO.35, 5^TH CROSS 80 FEET ROAD KORAMANGALA JAKKASANDRA EXTENSION, BANGALORE-560034

¶8

...PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI NAGARAJA T, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND

¶11

1 . BRUHATH BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE N.R.CIRCLE BANGALORE-560002 RPTD. BY ITS COMMISSIONER

¶12

2 . THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR TOWN PLANNING, MAHADEVPURA MAHADEVPURA DIVISION (ZONE), BBMP BANGALORE-5600

¶13

3 . THE URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT BY ITS SECRETARY VIDHANASUDHA BANGALORE-560001

¶14

…RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SRI S.J.PURANIK, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2)

¶16

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH AN ENDORSEMENT DATED 22.02.2016 ISSUED BY R-2 AT ANNEXURE-B AND GRANT AN INTERIM ORDER TO DIRECT R-1 AND 2 TO ISSUE OCCUPANCY CERTIFICATE TO THE PETITIONER BY NOT DEMANDING ANY AMOUNT AS CLAIMED UNDER THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 22.02.2016 ISSUED BY R-2 AT ANNEXURE-B PENDING DISPOSAL OF THE ABOVE W.P.

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN `B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

The petitioner is the owner of the properties bearing Sy.Nos.1/4A, 1/4B1 and 1/4B3 situated at Panatturu village, Varthuru Hobli, Mahadevpura Sub-Division, Bangalore. The petitioner has called in question the endorsement dated 22.2.2016 issued by the respondent No.2 demanding the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.1,13,92,000/- towards the market value of 10% of the plot area towards park and open space development charges.

¶21

Learned counsel for the parties submit that the issue

¶22

involved in this writ petition was examined by the coordinate Bench of this Court in WP No.5823/2016 & connected matters (DD 28.3.2018), whereby the demand notice issued by the respondent – BBMP insofar as it relates to demanding payment of

¶23

¶24

market value of 10% of the plot area towards park and open space development charges were quashed. Hence, this writ petition requires to be dismissed in the light of the order passed in WP No.5823/2016 & connected matters. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶25

ORDER

¶26

i) Writ petition is allowed;

¶27

ii) The impugned endorsement dated 22.2.2016 issued

¶28

by the 2^nd respondent vide Annexure-B is hereby quashed.

¶29

Sd/JUDGE

¶30

BKM

Sri T Sudhakar v. Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri T Sudhakar v. Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Federal Mogul Goetz (India) Limited Vs Karnataka State Pollution Control Board

Smt. Valarmathi Vs Smt. S Devi

M/S Bharath Kumar Enterprises Vs State of Karnataka

Smt T Nagarathna @ Nagamma Vs Rajiv Gandhi Rural Housing Corporation Limited

Mr. T. v. Mohan Vs the State Government of Karnataka

M/S Mahindra Homes Private Limited Vs Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike