Partly allowed

Sri.v.Jayappa v. the Commissioner

Karnataka HC7 Feb 2022WP/2951/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed the writ petition in part and quashed the notice demanding improvement charges. It directed the respondents to consider the petitioner's request for khatha registration within three months and authorized re-determination of expenses.

What did the court decide?

The impugned demand notice dated 23/09/2015 is quashed. Respondents directed to consider the request for khatha registration within three months.

Sri.v.Jayappa Vs the Commissioner — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.2951 OF 2016 (LB-BMP)

¶7

BETWEEN :

¶8

SRI.V.JAYAPPA S/O VEKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS R/AT SY. NO.54 AND 40/1 TUBARAHALLI VILLAGE VARTHUR HOBLI BENGALURU - 560 067

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI.MALLIKARJUN N.K., ADVOCATE FOR SMT.RASHMI PATIL, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND :

¶12

THE COMMISSIONER BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE N.R.SQUARE

¶13

BENGALURU - 560 002

¶14

THE ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER HOODI SUB DIVISION HOODI

¶15

BENGALURU - 560 060

¶16

...RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI.S.J.PURANIK, ADVOCATE FOR R.1 AND R.2)

¶18

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE NOTICE DATED 23.09.2015 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN B GROUP THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

ORDER

¶22

This writ petition is filed challenging the notice dated 23/09/2015 calling upon the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.8,60,270/- towards improvement charges for registering the khatha in favour of the petitioner.

¶23

The impugned notice was issued in light of the Circular dated 28/09/2012 issued by the 1st respondent - BBMP.

¶24

The validity of the Circular dated

¶25

28/09/2012 was examined by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.40/2013 and connected matters. The Co-ordinate Bench, by its order dated 10/04/2013, quashed the Circular dated 28/09/2012 and also the demand notices impugned

¶26

¶27

therein. This Court further directed the respondents to consider the request of the petitioners therein for registration of khatha in their favour in accordance with law, if they are otherwise entitled to. The Court also reserved liberty with the respondent-BBMP to redo the process afresh to determine the appropriate improvement expenses in the light of the observations made in the order dated 20/04/2012 in W.P.No.18014/2011. Hence, this writ petition also requires to be disposed of in terms of the order passed in W.P.No.40/2013 and connected matters. Accordingly, I pass the following.

¶28

ORDER

¶29

i) The writ petition is allowed-in-part.

¶30

ii) The impugned demand notice dated

¶31

23/09/2015 issued by 2nd respondent at Annexure-A is quashed.

¶32

¶33

iii) The respondents are directed to

¶34

consider the request of the petitioner for registration of khatha, in favour of the petitioner, in accordance with law, if he is otherwise entitled to within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order and pass appropriate orders.

¶35

iv) The respondents are reserved liberty to re-do the process afresh to determine the appropriate improvement expenses in the light of the observations made in the order dated 20/04/2012 in W.P.No.18014/2011 and connected petitions and the observations made hereinabove.

¶36

¶37

v) The improvement charges if paid in part or in full by the petitioner, will remain subject to re-determination and adjustment or adjustment towards any other future

demands.

Sd/-

JUDGE

MKM

Sri.v.Jayappa v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri.v.Jayappa 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

M/S Padmamba Rice Mills Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Veeresh Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt.Manjula Vs the Commissioner

Smt Muthulakshmi Pitchammal Vs the Commissioner

M/S Neelanjana Enterprises Vs the Principal Secretary to the

Sri H R Divakar Vs the State of Karnataka