Allowed

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

Karnataka HC23 Feb 2022WP/4999/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition and quashed a demand letter issued by the Commissioner, BBMP, for park and open space development charges. The petitioners relied on a prior coordinate Bench judgment that quashed similar demands, ordering the 3rd respondent to issue a commencement certificate.

What did the court decide?

Quashed of impugned demand letter dated 16.9.2015; Direction to 3rd respondent to issue commencement certificate within six weeks.

Mr. T. v. Mohan Vs the State Government of… — Municipal and Town Planning | 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.4999/2016 (LB-BMP)

¶6

BETWEEN

¶7

1 . MR. T. V. MOHAN

¶8

S/O. LATE T.A. VARGHESE, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 2014, HAL II STAGE, 100 FEET ROAD, INDIRANAGAR, BANGALORE-560 008.

¶9

2 . MR. V. ABRAHAM S/O. LATE T.A. VARGHESE, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, RESIDING AT APARTMENT NO. GF1, A BLOCK, ELGIN, HOSUR ROAD, LANGFORD TOWN, BANGALORE. REP. BY MR. T.V. MOHAN.

¶10

3 . MR. SIDHARTH MATHEW S/O. LATE T.V. MATHEW, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, RESIDING AT PHILADELPHIA, USA,REPRESENTED BY MR. T.V. MOHAN

¶11

4 . MS. DIVYA MATHEW S/O. LATE T.V. MATHEW, AGED 26 YEARS, RESIDING AT BOSTON, USA, REPRESENTED BY MR. T.V. MOHAN.

¶12

...PETITIONERS

¶13

(BY SRI/SMT. BEENA P K, ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND

¶15

1 . THE STATE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA

¶16

¶17

REP. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, 4TH FLOOR, VIKASA SOUDHA, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE-560 001.

¶18

2 . THE COMMISSIONER BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE, CORPORATION CIRCLE, HUDSON CIRCLE, BANGALORE-560 002.

¶19

3 . THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF TOWN PLANNING (EAST) BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE, 22ND FLOOR, SUBHASH CHANDRA BOSE BUILDING, M.G. ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI NITHYANANDA K.R, AGA FOR R1; SRI S.J.PURANIK, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3)

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECTION AGAINST R-3 QUASH THE DEMAND LETTER DTD16.9.2015 IN LP NO.0006/201415 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-C ISSUED BY 2^ND RESPONDENT.

¶23

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

¶24

O R D E R

¶25

The petitioner, who intends to construct a three storied residential building (stilt+ground+first and second) consisting of six units approached the respondents for sanctioning of building plan on 7.10.2014. The 3^rd respondent approved the building plan on 26.12.2014. Thereafter, the petitioner deposited the

¶26

¶27

requisite fee towards approval and complied with all the conditions of provisions required for obtaining such approval.

¶28

When such being the case, the 3^rd respondent issued a demand letter dated 16.9.2015 demanding a sum of Rs.33,70,950/- from the petitioner as an amount equivalent to the guideline value of 10% of the land area to be earmarked for park and open space. Taking exception to the same, this writ petition is filed.

¶29

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

¶30

sital area of the schedule property is measuring 569.4 sq. mtrs. and so as to earmark the land for park and open space, the area of the property should exceed 20,000 sq. mtrs.

¶31

Learned counsel for the parties submit that the issue 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 market value of 10% of the plot area towards park and open space development charges were quashed. Hence, this writ petition requires to be allowed in the light of the order passed in

¶32

¶33

WP No.5823/2016 & connected matters. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶34

ORDER

¶35

i) Writ petition is allowed;

¶36

ii) The impugned letter dated 16.9.2015 issued by the 2^nd respondent vide Annexure-G is hereby quashed.

¶37

iii) The 3^rd respondent is directed to issue

¶38

commencement certificate, if not already issued, in pursuance of the sanctioned building plan dated 26.12.2014 within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶39

Sd/JUDGE

¶40

BKM

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

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

Sri T Sudhakar Vs Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike

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