Disposed

Arya Gruha Pvt. Ltd. v. the Commissioner

Karnataka HC15 Jun 2022WP/2473/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition challenging the levy and collection of improvement charges and betterment levy by the Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike. The court relied on a co-ordinate Bench order to dispose of the petition on similar terms, holding payment cannot be a pre-condition for khata registration.

What did the court decide?

The petition was disposed of on the same terms as the co-ordinate Bench judgment in W.P.Nos.56465 and 56724-734 of 2014.

Arya Gruha Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Commissioner — Banking and Recovery | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.2473/2022 (LB-BMP)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

ARYA GRUHA PVT. LTD. A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT SHOP NO.4, 1^ST FLOOR, ARYA HAMSA, SURVEY NO.28/1, KOTHNOOR, JP NAGAR, 8^TH PHASE, 2^ND BLOCK, BANGALORE 560083. REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, MR. C.K.RAMNARAIN

¶9

MANJUNATH S/O LATE MR. MUNISWAMAPPA H, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.72, "VANASIRI", VADDARAPALYA, GOTTIGERE POST, BANGALORE-560083.

¶10

…PETITIONERS

¶11

(BY SRI. SHASHIDHAR R., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

THE COMMISSIONER BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE, N.R. SQUARE, BANGALORE.

¶14

ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER ANJANAPURA SUB DIVISION, J.S.DINNE ROYAL COUNTY PARK, KOTONUR, BANGALORE-560083. …RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SRI. B.V.MURALIDHAR, ADVOCATE FOR R-1 AND R-2)

¶16

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE AN ORDER DECLARING THAT THE RESPONDENTS ARE NOT ENTITLED TO LEVY AND COLLECT IMPROVEMENT CHARGES OR BETTERMENT LEVY FROM THE PETITIONER IN RELATION TO THE PROPERTY EARLIER BEARING SURVEY NO.28/2, MEASURING 2 ACRES 10 GUNTAS, KOTHNUR VILLAGE, UTTARAHALLI HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK NOW BEARING KATHA NO.12/12/28/2 AND ETC.

¶18

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRILIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

ORDER

¶20

The petitioners have sought for a declaration that the respondents are not entitled to levy and collect improvement charges or betterment charges from the petitioners in relation to the property bearing Sy.No.28/2 of Kothnur Village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk bearing Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike khata No.12/12/28/2. They have also sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the respondents to refund Rs.12,52,000/-. They have also sought for quashing of a notice dated 04.11.2021 demanding interest at the rate of 1.5% per month on the balance amount of betterment charges payable.

¶21

¶22

The petitioners claim that the petitioner No.2

¶23

being the owner of the aforesaid land entered into a joint development agreement on 30.03.2009 with the petitioner No.1 for construction of a multi dwelling residential apartment complex. The property was converted from agricultural to residential purpose on 23.01.2009 and thereafter was assessed to tax. When the petitioners approached the respondents for registering the khata in their names, the respondents raised a demand for improvement charges of Rs.22,77,250/-, out of which, the petitioners paid a sum of Rs.12,52,000/-, the balance being payable at the time of effecting the khata. The petitioners claim that they obtained necessary sanctions and permission from the respective departments and developed the apartment complex. The respondent No.1 issued an Occupancy Certificate on 31.01.2019, where after, the petitioners have sold the apartments to various purchasers. When the petitioners approached the respondents for allotment of separate khata by an application dated 19.12.2020 along with the list of owners,

¶24

¶25

the respondent No.2 issued an endorsement dated 04.11.2021 demanding Rs.10,25,250/- being the balance improvement charges. The petitioners claimed that a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.Nos.56465 and 56724-734 of 2014 had declared that the respondents are not entitled to demand and claim improvement charges and betterment fee. Learned counsel for the petitioners prays that the petitioners may also be granted the same reliefs.

¶26

The respondents have opposed the writ petition and they contend that after the property was included within the limits of Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike in the year 2007, the petitioners got it converted for residential purposes on 23.01.2009 and thereafter, they applied for registration of khata from the respondent No.1. The respondent No.1 demanded improvement expenses as provided under Sections 466 and 467 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 read with the Karnataka Municipal Corporations (Recovery of Improvement

¶27

¶28

Expenses) Rules, 2009, which was applicable with effect from 17.01.2007. The respondents claimed that they demanded improvement charges at the rate of Rs.250/per Sq.mtr. amounting to Rs.22,77,250/-. The respondents further claim that the petitioners did not challenge the demand but paid a sum of Rs.12,52,000/- as first installment on 09.04.2013 and got the khata registered in their names, obtained plan and building license and thereafter, got the occupancy certificate. The respondents claim that these facilities were provided on the basis of an affidavit filed by the petitioner No.2 that he would pay the balance improvement expenses of Rs.10,25,250/-. The respondents further contend that the validity of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act (Recovery of Improvement Expenses Rules, 2009) was questioned before this Court in W.P.No.18014/2011 and other cases. This Court in terms of the order dated 20.04.2012 upheld the Rules except Rule 5 which provided for collection of the improvement expenses. The respondent No.1 challenged the said order in

¶29

¶30

W.A.No.2954/2012 which was withdrawn in view of subsequent circulars dated 28.09.2012 and 05.01.2013, re-fixing the improvement charges. It is stated that the order dated 26.08.2016 passed in W.P.No.56465/2014 is challenged in W.A.Nos.1581 and 2247 of 2017. They contended that the petitioners having filed an affidavit agreeing to pay the improvement charges and thereafter, receiving the benefit of khata plan and license and occupancy certificate cannot now turn back to question the legality of the demand for the payment of the balance improvement charges.

¶31

I have considered the submissions made by

¶32

the learned counsel for the parties.

¶33

It is not in dispute that the Co-ordinate

¶34

Bench of this Court in W.P.No.56465/2014 and other connected petitions was considering the question of collection of improvement charges as a condition precedent for registration of the khata. This Hon'ble Court held that the payment of improvement charges cannot be

¶35

¶36

made a pre-condition for registration/transfer/bifurcation/ amalgamation of khata/grant of plan etc., but may be demanded either at once or in installments, in which event, the owners have to pay interest for the period exceeding one year from the date of demand.

¶37

In the present case too, the respondents had raised a demand for improvement charges of Rs.22,77,250/-, out of which, the petitioners had paid Rs.12,52,000/- on 09.04.2013. The respondent No.2 has now raised a demand for Rs.10,25,250/-. In view of the judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench referred above, this petition is disposed off on the same terms as in W.P.No.56465/2014 and other connected petitions.

¶38

Sd/JUDGE

¶39

NR/-

Arya Gruha Pvt. Ltd. v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arya Gruha Pvt. Ltd. v. the Commissioner

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

Sri v Chandrashekar Vs the Commissioner

Sri H K Manjunath Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr Rathnakar Kamath Vs the Panchayath Development Officer

Sri. H.G. Santhosh Vs the State of Karnataka

P.E. Sureshbabu Vs the Additional Secretary

R K Prasad Vs the State of Karnataka