Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 300 (KAR)

Col. J. B. Monis v. State of Karnataka

2002-04-19

R.GURURAJAN

body2002
ORDER R. Gururajan, J.--Petitioners in these petitions are seeking for several prayers. 2. Petitioners state that they own sites within the jurisdiction of Krishnarajapuram City Municipal Council. They say that the Respondents have collected a sum of Rs.75,600/- towards betterment charges from Petitioner 1 and a sum of Rs.20,600/- from the Petitioner 2. According to petition averment no betterment charges are payable by the Petitioners. They have referred to correspondences in this regard. 3. Writ Petition No. 44665 of 1999 is filed by Emke Establishments seeking for several prayers. 4. They say that the State Government has issued a circular with regard to betterment charges. According to them no betterment charges are payable by the Petitioner. With these facts they are before this Court. 5. Notice has been issued. Pursuant to which the Respondents have filed their counter in Writ Petition Nos. 25482-483 of 1998. In the counter statement it is stated that the municipality is collecting betterment charges on the basis of the circulars issued by the State Government. 6. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 7. Admitted facts reveal that the Respondent-Municipal Council is collecting betterment charges from the Petitioner. Petitioner say that the Respondent have no right in law to collect the same. In somewhat identical circumstances, in Writ Petition Nos. 16258-259 of 1998, dated 24.7.1998, a learned Single Judge of this Court has ruled that betterment charges are not recoverable by the municipal council in terms of the provisions of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act. In the light of this judgment it is not open to the Respondents to collect betterment charges in the absence of statutory powers available to them in terms of the law governing the municipalities. Therefore, the Petitioners are right in their contention. Respondents are also unable to show any provision of law providing them to collect betterment charges, they only refer to the circular. Circular cannot provide for collecting betterment charges in the absence of any provision in the Act providing for collection of betterment charges. 8. In the circumstances a direction is issued to the Respondent to refund a sum of Rs.75,600/- collected as betterment charges from the Petitioner No. 1 within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Similarly a direction is also issued to Respondent to pay Rs.20,600/- collected from Petitioner 2 as betterment charges. 8. In the circumstances a direction is issued to the Respondent to refund a sum of Rs.75,600/- collected as betterment charges from the Petitioner No. 1 within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Similarly a direction is also issued to Respondent to pay Rs.20,600/- collected from Petitioner 2 as betterment charges. A direction is also issued to Respondents in Writ Petition No. 44665 of 1999 not to insist for payment of betterment charges in terms of the Circular. It is further directed to consider the case of the Petitioner in Writ Petition No. 44665 of 1999 with regard to the sanctioned plan in terms of his application dated 1.3.1999. 9. Ordered accordingly. No costs.