JUDGMENT :- (These petitions are filed with a prayer to quash the demand dated 18.7.2008 at Annexure 'D' and direct respondents to refund a sum of Rs.39,44,900/- collected by the respondents under receipt at Annexure E etc.,.) After hearing the Learned Counsel for the parties on 15.4.2009, this court recorded thus:- "The 2nd petitioner claiming to be the sole and absolute owner of certain immovable properties at Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, offered the same to the 1st petitioner for development and entered into a joint development agreement dated 19-05-2006. The 1st respondent – Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike (for short 'BBMP'), issued a circular dated 7-11-2007 Annexure – "C" permitting the officers to demand and recover betterment charges in respect of properties identical to that of the petitioner's property, at the rate of Rs.600/- per sq.mt. and on demand being made on 18-07-2008, the pre-condition for transfer of katha into the name of the 1st petitioner Annexure-"D", the petitioners deposited Rs.39,44,900/- by Demand Draft dated 22-07-2008 which when acknowledged, receipt Annexure – "E" was issued. It is stated that consequent thereto, the BBMP issued the Katha Certificate and the Assessment Extract of the schedule property. It is stated that this Court, by order dated 21-07-2008 in W.P.No.5035/2008 in the case of Janapriya Engineers Syndicate (India) Pvt. Limited vs. Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike, Annexure – "H", quashed the circular dated 7-11-2007 and the proceedings dated 27-10-2007, on the premise that the circular permitting the demand and recovery of "Kannadam" at the rate of Rs.600/- per sq.mt., as a pre-condition for issue of katha was alien to the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976. Petitioners, aggrieved by the failure of the Corporation to refund Rs.39,44,900/-collected towards "Kannadam" in respect of the immovable property in question, have presented this petition to quash the demand dated 18-07-2008 Annexure – "D" and for a direction to respondents to refund Rs.39,44,900/- with interest at 12% per annum including costs of the petition. Indisputably, the BBMP had neither authority nor jurisdiction under the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act to levy, demand and recover "Kannadam" at the rate of Rs.600/- per sq.mt., more so after the order dated 21-07-2008 Annexure-"H" of this Court quashing the circular dated 7-11-2007, whence the BBMP was arraigned as the 1st respondent. Indisputably, the BBMP had neither authority nor jurisdiction under the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act to levy, demand and recover "Kannadam" at the rate of Rs.600/- per sq.mt., more so after the order dated 21-07-2008 Annexure-"H" of this Court quashing the circular dated 7-11-2007, whence the BBMP was arraigned as the 1st respondent. The BBMP, instead of refunding Rs.39,44,900/- collected from the petitioners, appears to have gone into hibernation, unmindful of the fact that the Corporation could not have accounted for the said sum in its Books of Account. At this stage, Sri. K.N. Puttegowda, learned counsel for the respondent – BBMP submits that efforts would be made to refund the said sum to the 2nd petitioner on or before 24-04-2009. List on 24-04-2009." 2. There after the order sheet dated 24.4.2009, reads thus: "Ms. Bhagirathi, learned counsel for Sri. K.N. Puttegowda, for BBMP, submits that objection statement is ready and would be filed in the course of the day and that the hearing be adjourned until after vacation. The submission is preposterous, in the light of the order dated 15.4.2009 whence after judgment was partly dictated, at that stage, Sri. K.N. Puttegowda, learned counsel stating that refund would be made to the 2nd petitioner on or before 24.4.2009 and the petition be listed today. Instead of making payment of the moneys to the 2nd petitioner, submission is sought to be made to file statement of objections. List the matter for further orders on 25.5.2009." 3. The respondent – BBMP, filed in the registry on 24.4.2009, the Statement of Objections dated 22.4.2009 advancing a plea that the petitioners having not obtained the change of land use, under Section 14A of The Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, the request for registration of katha, when accompanied by a voluntary payment of Betterment Charges, for providing Civic amenities and the BBMP on the basis of the Circular Dtd.7.11.2007 calculated the Betterment Charges, duly paid by the petitioner, hence there is no forceable extraction of the betterment charges. At paragraph 5 of the said statement it is stated that the 2nd respondent-Asst. Revenue Officer was not aware of the decision of this Court dated 21.7.2008 in WP 5035/2008, quashing the Circular dt.7.11.2007. 4. At paragraph 5 of the said statement it is stated that the 2nd respondent-Asst. Revenue Officer was not aware of the decision of this Court dated 21.7.2008 in WP 5035/2008, quashing the Circular dt.7.11.2007. 4. Indisputably the petitioners by letter dated 17.10.2007, Annexure-R1, addressed to the 2nd respondent, requested for issue of katha of the immovable property in Sy.No.7/1 of Utharahalli, to secure a sanction of the modified Plan by the BBMP as the BDA had earlier sanctioned the Plan and stated thus: "we will pay the difference in payment towards the development fee and other cess applicable in this connection." By the letters dtd.30.11.07; 21.6.08 Annexure-R2 & R3 the petitioners, reiterated the very same request. 5. Undoubtedly the Circular dated 7.11.07 Annexure-C, of the BBMP, permit the authorities to demand and recover betterment charges at Rs.600/- per Sq.mt of land as a pre-condition for transfer of katha was quashed by order dated 21.7.2008 in WP 5035/08, supra, taking note of the fact that a demand for the very same fee when questioned in WP 16617/02 was given up by the BBMP, until after relevant rules were framed under Sec.446 of the Act. In yet another order dated 24.7.98, in WP 13368/98, and connected petitions, this court on the basis of the BBMP's memo stating that it would not compulsorily impose and collect development charges, disposed off the petition. 6. In this view of the matter the BBMP was estopped from making a demand and collecting any amounts towards betterment charges, at the rate of Rs.600/- per sq.mt, of land, as a precursor to the registration of katha. The contention that the 2nd respondent, a responsible officer of the BBMP, had no knowledge of the Order dated 21.7.08, Annexure-H in WP 5035/08, is far from truth and borders around contempt, as the BBMP was the party respondent therein. 7. The next contention that the petitioners volunteered to pay betterment charges is without merit. "Word 'Voluntary' means acting, or done, of ones' own free will without valuable consideration, acting or done, without any present legal obligation to do thing done. Reid v. Herrick Foundation, 280 P.2d 241, 243, 131 C.A.2d Supp.877." 8. In words and phrases by John B. Saunders, 3rd Edn. Vol. "Word 'Voluntary' means acting, or done, of ones' own free will without valuable consideration, acting or done, without any present legal obligation to do thing done. Reid v. Herrick Foundation, 280 P.2d 241, 243, 131 C.A.2d Supp.877." 8. In words and phrases by John B. Saunders, 3rd Edn. Vol. 4, page 401, 'Voluntary' is defined as: "------- The classic statement of the principle is that the Lord Summer in Ibrahim V. Regem [(1914) AC 599 at 609] where he said, "It has long been established as a positive rule of English Criminal Law that no statement by an accused is admissible in evidence against him unless it is shown by the prosecution to be a voluntary statement, in the sense that it has not been obtained from him either by fear of prejudice or hope of advantage exercised or held out by a person in authority. The principle is as old as Lord Hale. "However, in five of the eleven text books cited to us..... support is to be found for a narrow and rather technical meaning of the word "voluntary." According to this view "voluntary" means merely that the statement has not been made in consequence of (I) some promise of advantage or some threat (ii) of a temporal character (iii) held out or made by a person in authority and (iv) relating to the charge in the sense that it implies that the accused's position in the contemplated proceedings will or may be better or worse according to whether or not the statement is made.' R.v. Harz, R.v. Power (1966) 3 All ER 433 at 454, 455, per Cantley V." 9. Thus in the facts of this case, the statement in the letter Annexure-R2 cannot be construed as 'Voluntary' payment of, betterment charges, as the BBMP has not framed rules under Section 446 of the Act, and the Circular Dtd.7.11.07, fixing Rs.600/-per Sq.mt. of land as betterment charges is quashed. The demand Annexure-D dated 18.7.08, to pay Rs.39,44,900/- at the rate of Rs.600/-per sq.mt. as set out in the Circular dtd. 7.11.07, towards betterment fee by the BBMP is illegal, arbitrary and unsustainable. 10. of land as betterment charges is quashed. The demand Annexure-D dated 18.7.08, to pay Rs.39,44,900/- at the rate of Rs.600/-per sq.mt. as set out in the Circular dtd. 7.11.07, towards betterment fee by the BBMP is illegal, arbitrary and unsustainable. 10. The last of the contentions that the petitioner is not entitled to a mandamus to refund Rs.39,44,900/- with interest, is also without merit, in the light of the observation of the decision of a Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in Suganmal V. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others reported in (AIR 1965 SC 1940), which reads thus:- "(6) On the first point, we are of opinion that though the High Courts have power to pass any appropriate order in the exercise of the powers conferred under Art.226 of the Constitution, such a petition solely praying for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the State to refund the money is not ordinarily maintainable for the simple reason that a claim for such a refund can always be made in a suit against the authority which had illegally collected the money as a tax. We have been referred to cases in which orders had been issued directing the State to refund taxes illegally collected, but all such cases had been those in which the petitions challenged the validity of the assessment and for consequential relief for the return of the tax illegally collected. We have not been referred to any case in which the Courts were moved by a petition under Art.226 simply for the purpose of obtaining refund of money due from the State on account of its having made illegal exactions. We do not consider it proper to extend the principle justifying the consequential order directing the refund of amounts illegally realised, when the order under which the amounts had been collected has been set aside, to cases in which only orders for the refund of money are sought. The parties had the right to question the illegal assessment orders on the ground of their illegality or unconstitutionality and, therefore, could take action under Art.226 for the protection of their fundamental right and the Courts, on setting aside the assessment orders, exercised their jurisdiction in proper circumstances to order the consequential relief for the refund of the tax illegally realised. We do not find any good reason to extend this principle and, therefore, hold that no petition for the issue of a writ of mandamus will be normally entertained for the purpose of merely ordering a refund of money to the return of which the petitioner claims a right." (Emphasis Supplied) 11. Applying the said principles to the facts of this case, the demand Annexure-D, to pay Rs.39,44,900/- having been called in question and as a consequence, a writ of mandamus, for its refund, the petitions are maintainable. 12. Looking at it from any angle the demand impugned is unsustainable and is accordingly quashed and as a consequence a mandamus shall ensue to the BBMP to refund, to the petitioners, Rs.39,44,900/-forthwith, failing which shall carry interest at 12% p.a. from the date of receipt of the said sum. Writ Petitions are ordered accordingly.