On a fair concession that the challenge to development charges is covered by a prior judgment, the bench allowed the writ petition in terms of the earlier order.
The writ petition is allowed in terms of the order passed in W.P.No.4010 of 2005 & batch, dated 5.10.2010.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO
W.P.No.22513 of 2011
ORDER
Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 3.
This Writ Petition is filed challenging the levy and collection of the development charges pursuant to the letter dated 29.06.2009 of the 1st respondent.
When the matter is taken up for hearing, learned counsel on either side fairly concedes that the issue involved in the writ petition is squarely covered by the order of this Court in W.P.No.4010 of 2005 & batch, dated 5.10.2010.
In view of the same, the Writ Petition is allowed in terms of the order passed in W.P.No.4010 of 2005 & batch, dated 5.10.2010. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed.
JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO
10th April, 2015
rkk
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Writ Petition challenging the levy of development charges is barred by a previous judgment.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
W.P.No.4010 of 2005 & batch, dated 5.10.2010Followed¶6
1 provisions across 1 enactments
PETITIONER
RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3
R. KANTHA RAO
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
