JUDGMENT :- (This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the order dated 23rd February, 2006 (Annexure-C) passed by the respondent 2. This Writ Petitioner is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to direct the respondents to regularize the private layout existed at Sy.No.32/3 of Gidadakonenahalli Village, Yeshwanthapura Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, as per the resolution dated 28-3-2002 vide Annexure-J by respondent-2. This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the order/letter bearing No. BDA/00.AA.(LA)/ V.BHOO.SWA.A/ A4/ PR/ 727/ 2005-06 dated 19-4-2006 passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, BDA, the second respondent herein (Annexure-J).) In all these writ petitions, the question involved is the validity of the imposition of betterment tax and subsequent withdrawal. Therefore, they are taken up for consideration together and disposed off by this common order. 2. The petitioners in all these writ petitions are the owners of the sites, which are more particularly described in their respective writ petitions. The only exception is that petitioner in W.P.5494/06 owns land. These sites and land were the subject matter of five notifications issued by the Bangalore Development Authority. The first notification is in respect of Anjanapura Layout. The land situated in Anjanapura Village was the subject matter of the said notification. The preliminary notification was issued on 26.3.1999 and the final notification was issued on 28.8.2000. The second notification is for Banashankari VI Stage issued by the Bangalore Development Authority. The land and sites situated in Ganakalu Village are the subject matter of this notification. The preliminary notification is issued on 1.12.2000 and final notification is issued on 23.8.2001. The third notification is for further extension of Anajanapura Layout. The lands which are the subject matter of this notification are situated in Kembathalli. The preliminary notification is dated 29.3.2001 and the final notification is dated 21.3.2002. The fourth notification pertains to further extension of Banashankari VI Stage. The sites and the land situated in Vajrahalli and Gubbarala are the subject matter of this notification. The preliminary notification is dated 21.11.2002 and final notification is dated 10.9.2003. The last notification is issued for the further extension of Sir M Vishveshwaraiah Layout. The subject matter of this notification is the land situated in Herohalli and Giddanakonenahalli. The sites and the land situated in Vajrahalli and Gubbarala are the subject matter of this notification. The preliminary notification is dated 21.11.2002 and final notification is dated 10.9.2003. The last notification is issued for the further extension of Sir M Vishveshwaraiah Layout. The subject matter of this notification is the land situated in Herohalli and Giddanakonenahalli. The preliminary notification is dated 8.4.2003 and final notification is dated 9.9.2003. 3. The sites and lands belonging to all these petitioners along with other lands were notified by the Bangalore Development Authority (for short hereinafter referred to as ‘B.D.A.’) for acquisition and implementation of the scheme framed by them under section 15 and 16 of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 (For short hereinafter referred to as the “Act”). 4. The B.D.A. has filed a statement showing the details of land acquisition, writ petition numbers, the name of the petitioners, the village where it is situated, survey numbers, total extent notified for acquisition, the lands in respect of which awards are passed and approved, cases in which possession is taken and notification is issued u/s 16(2) of the Land Acquisition Act as well as the extent in respect of which, they have issued notice to the petitioners calling upon them to pay betterment charges and the fact whether they have deposited any amount of compensation in Court or not. For ready reference, the statement is extracted hereunder: TABLE 5. The petitioners in these writ petitions contend that though under the sale deed, they have purchased a portion of the land measured in guntas, they are in actual possession of well-planned sites in a private layout. Some of them have even put up constructions, and are living there with their family. Some of them had challenged the acquisition of their lands/sites on various grounds. Simultaneously, they had also approached the B.D.A. to drop the acquisition proceedings. It was their specific case that when these lands are being acquired by the B.D.A. for the formation of a residential layout in order to distribute the said sites to the needy and poor who cannot afford to purchase sites in the open market, the acquisition is not proper as these petitioners also belong to the same category. It was their specific case that when these lands are being acquired by the B.D.A. for the formation of a residential layout in order to distribute the said sites to the needy and poor who cannot afford to purchase sites in the open market, the acquisition is not proper as these petitioners also belong to the same category. When they have purchased the sites, acquisition of their sites would not be in tune with the object of the Act and the very purpose of acquisition would be defeated. They also requested the authorities that they are willing to pay betterment charges to B.D.A. as required under law and they want those sites to be given up from acquisition and on payment of betterment charges, they may also be extended the facilities which are extended to the site owners of Bangalore Development Authority Layout. It is their further case that the authorities insisted, unless the writ petitions filed challenging the acquisition are withdrawn, their request would not be considered and that their request would be favourably considered after they withdraw the petitions. Under those circumstances, the petitioners who had filed such writ petitions challenging the acquisition, filed a memo in their respective writ petitions stating the aforesaid facts and sought leave of the Court to withdraw their respective petitions. Accordingly, leave was granted and petitions were withdrawn. After withdrawal of such writ petitions, the authority in its meeting resolved to collect betterment charges from these persons as per their request and to drop these lands from acquisition. It is in pursuance of the said Board’s resolution notices were issued to all the petitioners claiming betterment charges at the rate of Rs.30/- per sq.ft. On receipt of such notices, all the petitioners have paid the betterment charges. When they were hoping that everything would be regularised, khata would be made out in their names, tax would be collected and all the facilities would be extended to them, they are served with the impugned notices informing the petitioners that they had no authority to impose such betterment charges and therefore, they are withdrawing the earlier notice and that they would proceed with the acquisition. It is under those circumstances, all the petitioners are before this Court challenging the impugned notices. 6. The B.D.A. has filed its statement of objections. It is under those circumstances, all the petitioners are before this Court challenging the impugned notices. 6. The B.D.A. has filed its statement of objections. The sum and substance of their stand is that they did acquire these lands for implementation of the project proposed by them. However, when the petitioners gave representation for dropping acquisition proceedings, the authority thought of dropping further execution of development scheme proposed in the said land. They collected the betterment charges from the petitioners and issued NOC pertaining to the disputed land as required u/s 20 of the Act. Acceptance of such betterment taxes from the land owners would not debar the authority from acquisition of the land, if such acquisition is necessary as per Section 24 of the Act. However, the B.D.A. has to implement the proposed scheme. Therefore, they refunded betterment charges and they are proceeding with the acquisition. The act of respondent in refunding the betterment charges is in accordance with law and they have not committed any illegality. They deny that they ever made any representation to the petitioners that in the event of their withdrawing the writ petitions challenging the acquisition, they would collect the betterment charges and regularise the said sites. Subsequently, additional statement was filed, contending that requirements under the Act starting from Section 17 to 24 for levy and collection of betterment tax were followed. There was an oral direction from the Government to continue acquisition proceedings of the lands on which betterment tax has been collected after refunding the same to the land owners. Section 65 of the Act has conferred on the Government the right to give such directions to B.D.A. and therefore, the impugned endorsements are rightly issued pursuant to the directions issued by the Government. They are under obligation to implement the scheme approved by the Government. They have no option except to implement the scheme. Consequently, refund of betterment charges was made to these petitioners. The case of principle of promissory estoppel set up by the petitioners is not applicable to the facts of this case. 7. The Government was directed to file its counter. However, they had not filed any counter but their stand is made clear by way of letter dated 14.9.2007 addressed by the Principal Secretary to the Housing Department to the learned Government Advocate. 7. The Government was directed to file its counter. However, they had not filed any counter but their stand is made clear by way of letter dated 14.9.2007 addressed by the Principal Secretary to the Housing Department to the learned Government Advocate. In the said letter, it is categorically stated that no such oral directions referred to by the B.D.A. were given to them. However, as the imposition of betterment tax by the B.D.A. is not in accordance with law, they are justified in refunding the said amount and in proceeding with acquisition. They have also produced alongwith the said letter, the note sheet which shows that all the departmental heads after reviewing the whole thing, were of the opinion that imposition of betterment tax was not in accordance with law and therefore, the said amount is to be refunded and acquisition proceedings have to be proceeded with. In fact, they have also obtained a legal opinion in this regard. 8. A rejoinder is filed by some of the petitioners. They contend that Section 17 is independent of Section 20 of the Act. Under Section 20 of the Act, the B.D.A. is competent to collect the betterment tax. Therefore, the stand of the B.D.A. is untenable. The B.D.A. having collected the betterment tax from thousands of citizens from Bangalore has given up acquisition notwithstanding final notification u/s 19 of the Act. The petitioners are treated with hostile discrimination. If this court were to summon all the records of the B.D.A. regarding the betterment tax collected from other citizens, it would clearly reveal that, in the case of the petitioners, the B.D.A. is trying to contend that collection of betterment tax was bad in law. In Civil Appeal No.14037/96 connected with other cases in the case of H.C.Venkatesh and Others Vs. Bangalore Development Authority, the Supreme Court has held that if the Bangalore Development Authority is unable to implement the scheme, it can enter into settlement with the land owners and such agreement cannot be said to be unfair or unjust especially when the Bangalore Development Authority passes a resolution in that regard. There are innumberable number of judgments of similar nature passed by this Court as well as the Hon’ble Supreme Court which are being suppressed by the B.D.A. The conduct of the Bangalore Development Authority is unfair and therefore, they seek for allowing the writ petitions. 9. There are innumberable number of judgments of similar nature passed by this Court as well as the Hon’ble Supreme Court which are being suppressed by the B.D.A. The conduct of the Bangalore Development Authority is unfair and therefore, they seek for allowing the writ petitions. 9. I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties. 10. Sri Vivek Holla, learned Counsel appearing for some of the petitioners contended that, as is clear from the stand of the B.D.A., the lands belonged to the petitioners were not required by the B.D.A. for implementation of the scheme. Nearly seven years have elapsed from the date of initiation of acquisition proceedings till now. The petitioners had challenged the acquisition proceedings on various grounds. It is only on the representation of the B.D.A. that they would give up the lands from acquisition and collect betterment charges if the petitioners withdrew the challenge to the acquisition, the petitioners withdrew the writ petitions and thus gave up their challenge to the acquisition. Thus, the petitioners’ position stands altered because of the representation of the respondents. On their part, the authority kept its promise by issuing a notice calling upon the petitioners to pay the betterment charges and in turn, the petitioners paid betterment charges claimed by the authorities. In fact, one of the quid pro quo for giving up the land from acquisition was that the petitioners have to give up their land which is required by the B.D.A. for the formation of the road free of cost, as agreed. They gave up the land to B.D.A. to form the road, thus again, altering their position to their disadvantage. Thus when promises and reciprocal promises are kept up, it is not open to the authority now to go back on the promise and expose the petitioners to the threat of acquisition. Therefore, he contends that on the doctrine of promissory estoppel the respondents are precluded from going back on their promise and in passing the impugned orders. Thus when promises and reciprocal promises are kept up, it is not open to the authority now to go back on the promise and expose the petitioners to the threat of acquisition. Therefore, he contends that on the doctrine of promissory estoppel the respondents are precluded from going back on their promise and in passing the impugned orders. Even otherwise, he contends, in the land which is the subject matter of acquisition, which was purchased much prior to initiation of acquisition proceedings, some of them have put up construction and are living with their family and the B.D.A. has not passed any awards, possession is not taken and therefore, it is too late in the day for the respondents to resile from their stand and to proceed with any further acquisition. Section 20 of the Act provides for imposition of betterment charges. When the statute provides for imposition of betterment charges and the authority in its wisdom passes a resolution to impose betterment charges and the same is given effect to and betterment charges are collected, on the ground that the Government has issued an oral order not to collect betterment charges and to proceed with the acquisition, it is not open to the B.D.A. to pass the impugned order. 11. Sri Sanjay Gowda, learned Counsel appearing for some of the petitioners contended that, the said authority has not passed any resolution not to collect the betterment charges. The Land Acquisition Officer who has issued the impugned notices has no jurisdiction or authority to hold that the resolution passed by the Board is illegal, contrary to law acting on the oral direction issued by the Principal Secretary to Revenue Department of the Government of Karnataka and therefore, on that short ground, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside. He also contended that under the scheme of the Act, at two stages the authority has the power to impose betterment charges. He also contended that under the scheme of the Act, at two stages the authority has the power to impose betterment charges. First, while framing the scheme it is open to the authority to decide in respect of which lands which are included under the Scheme it proposes to levy the betterment charges, in which event, the same has to be mentioned in the scheme under section 17(1) notification and then individual notices have to be sent to those land owners from whom they intend collecting the betterment charges and thereafter, sanction has to be obtained from the Government before imposing betterment charges. The second stage is in respect of the land which are notified for acquisition, under section 19(5) the authority has the power to modify the scheme, if they find that a particular land is not required, then under section 20 of the Act, it is open to them to collect betterment charges in respect of the lands which are the subject matter of acquisition both under section 17(1) and 19(1) notification. Therefore, the imposition of betterment charges by the BDA is with authority of law and the Government had no jurisdiction to interfere with the implementation of the said resolution passed by the B.D.A. 12. Sri C.M.Naghabushana, learned Counsel for the petitioner in Writ Petition N0.5494/06 contended that all the ingredients which are required for attracting the doctrine of promissory estoppel exists in this case and therefore, the action of the respondents is squarely hit by the said doctrine and cannot be sustained. Insofar as the petitioner in the aforesaid writ petition is concerned, an extent of 4 acres 14 guntas was notified for acquisition but while passing the award the acquisition was confined only to the extent of 1 acre 3 guntas which was required for the formation of roads, as it was agreed by the petitioner to give up free of cost so that rest of the land i.e. roughly 3 acres 11 guntas is left out of acquisition. It is after passing the said award, the agreement is reduced into writing and the petitioner was called upon to pay betterment charges, which he has paid. The Land Acquisition Officer has not passed any award in respect of the land acquired, because the petitioners had agreed to make available the said land for the formation of road free of cost. The Land Acquisition Officer has not passed any award in respect of the land acquired, because the petitioners had agreed to make available the said land for the formation of road free of cost. Accordingly, the remaining extent of land was given up from acquisition in view of the understanding reached between the B.D.A. and the petitioners. Therefore, it is not open to the B.D.A. to go back on their promise at this length of time. 13. The learned Counsel appearing for the other petitioners in other cases reiterated the aforesaid stand. 14. The learned Government Advocate contended that the land is acquired by the Government for implementation of the scheme proposed by the B.D.A. Only after making a final declaration, the award is passed, possessing is taken, the question of B.D.A. implementing the scheme would arise. Till such time the B.D.A. has no right over the land which is notified for acquisition. When that being the case, the B.D.A. has no power to collect betterment charges in respect of the land which is the subject matter of acquisition, which is yet to vest in the State itself. Realizing the mistake they have committed, the B.D.A. was justified in retracing the steps by passing the impugned orders, so that no fault could be found. 15. The learned Counsel appearing for the B.D.A. Sri G.K.V.Murthy contended that under the Scheme of Act, the Scheme should specify the properties in respect of which the B.D.A. intends to collect betterment charges. Thereafter, it forms part of Notification u/s 17(1) of the Act. Individual notices have to be sent to those persons from whom betterment tax is to be collected. It is after hearing their objections if the same is overruled, the entire Scheme is to be placed for sanction. If the Government accords sanction then the Scheme has to be implemented as per the sanction accorded. It is only after the implementation of the Scheme, if the market value of the land comprised in the Scheme which was not the subject matter of acquisition has increased, the B.D.A. gets the authority to impose betterment tax in respect of increased value of the land and Section 21 of the Act provides for a mode in which betterment tax is to be assessed and collected. Therefore, when admittedly the B.D.A. did not propose to collect betterment tax from these petitioners, on the contrary their lands were notified for acquisition, on a misunderstanding of the law, the betterment tax was levied and collected and on coming to know the error committed by them, they have retraced the steps as their act was contrary to law. Therefore, it cannot be said that they committed any illegality in passing the impugned order. 16. Sri Shankara Narayana Rao, learned counsel appearing for the B.D.A. contended that, Section 20 of the Act provides for collection of betterment tax whereas what the authorities have collected is betterment charges. The resolution of the B.D.A. is to collect betterment charges and not betterment tax. The authority has not withdrawn the petitioners’ land from acquisition, they are only staying away from acquisition. In fact, this betterment charge is paid by the petitioners voluntarily, it was not imposed on them by the authority and therefore, it cannot be said that the authority has no power to withdraw the levy which they have made. 17. Sri Puttegowda, learned Counsel for the B.D.A. submitted that the aforesaid levy was inadvertent and after realizing the mistake, knowing the correct legal position, the authority wants to retrace its steps, which cannot be found fault with. Therefore, he submits that there is no merit in these writ petitions and they are liable to be dismissed. 18. In the light of the aforesaid facts, and the submissions made, the following points arise for consideration:- (1) Whether the B.D.A. has the power to levy betterment tax; if so, at what stage and how the tax has to be levied under the Act? (2) Whether the doctrine of Promissory Estoppel applies to the facts of the case? 19. Point No. 1:- The facts are not in dispute. The subject matter of acquisition are the lands belonging to the petitioners. The preliminary notification was issued. The objections filed by the petitioners were over ruled and the final notification was also issued. In other words, the Government has accorded sanction to the Scheme proposed by the B.D.A. Thereafter, awards have been passed, possession of the land is taken, layout is formed and thus, the Scheme proposed by the B.D.A. is substantially implemented. But, admittedly, the State has not taken possession of the land, which is in the occupation of the petitioners except in three instances. But, admittedly, the State has not taken possession of the land, which is in the occupation of the petitioners except in three instances. Barring few exceptions, no award is passed in respect of these petitioners. Most of the petitioners challenged the acquisition on various grounds by filling writ petitions before this Court. Simultaneously it appears that they also approached the government and the B.D.A. for dropping the acquisition proceedings. The B.D.A on 25.7.2002 gave an endorsement to the petitioners stating that representations given by them have been examined. They have to form 80ft. road in their lands. If the petitioners are willing to give up that much of land free of cost, the betterment tax can be imposed on the remaining extent of land as is done in the case of Anjanapura Layout and subject o those conditions, they would consider the case of the petitioners. The petitioners agreed to give up the extent of land, which is required for formation of road. 20. These resolutions are passed by the B.D.A. in this regard from time to time in respect of the aforesaid layouts. The first of such resolutions is resolution No.83/02 in respect of Anjanapura Layout which reads as follows: Subject No. 83/02 Sub: Fixation of betterment charges for Private Layouts formed within Anjanapura Township. Anjanapura Township was formed during the year 2000-2001 to develop 449 acres of land for allotment of 5,000 sites to General Public. There are two private layouts existing within the Township covering an area of 40 Acres. The site holders of these private layouts seeking basic facilities such as approach roads, water supply, UGD and electricity from main lines, have come forward to pay the betterment charges to B.D.A. for providing such facilities. In order to integrate these two private layouts within the Township it is proposed to levy betterment charges towards provision for approach road, to draw electricity from sub-station, water supply, UGD, from main lines of the Townships. This betterment charges does not include the provision of water supply distribution, sewer laterals, internal electrification and street lighting within the private layouts. Accordingly, as per the detailed cost analysis the cost per sq. mtrs., works out to Rs.320.00 or Rs.30.00 sq/ft. The subject is placed before the Authority to approve the Betterment Charges of Rs.30.00/- sq.ft. leviable to the site holders of the Private Layouts proposed to be integrated within the Anjanapura Township. Accordingly, as per the detailed cost analysis the cost per sq. mtrs., works out to Rs.320.00 or Rs.30.00 sq/ft. The subject is placed before the Authority to approve the Betterment Charges of Rs.30.00/- sq.ft. leviable to the site holders of the Private Layouts proposed to be integrated within the Anjanapura Township. Sd/- Engineer Member LANGUAGE 21. The second of such resolutions is resolution No.177/03 of Further Extension of Banashankari Sixth Stage which reads as follows: LANGUAGE 23. The first resolution No.83/02 was passed in the second meeting of 2002 held on 27th February, 2002. Out of 13 members who constituted the authority, six persons were present and seven persons were absent. Resolution No.177/03 was passed in the second meeting of 2003 held on 28th June 2003. Out of nineteen members, who constituted the authority, four members remained absent. Resolution No. 104/04 was passed in the third meeting in 2004 held on 11th June 2004, there were in all nineteen members who constituted the authority and five members remained absent. 24. From the aforesaid three resolutions, we can make out that, in Anjanapura Layout there are two private layouts existing within the township covering an area of 40 acres. The site holders in these private layouts have also come forward to pay betterment charges to the B.D.A. for providing basic facilities such as approach roads, water supply and electricity from the main lanes. In order to integrate these two private layouts within the township, the authority proposed to levy betterment charges towards provision for approach road, to draw electricity from sub-station, water supply from main lanes of the township. These betterment charges does not include the provision for water supply distribution, sewerageal laterals, internal electrification and street light within the private layouts. According to the detailed cost analysis, the cost per square meter works out to 320 or Rs.30/- per sq.ft. The said subject was placed before the authority which was approved. In Resolution No.177/03 the authority decided to collect betterment charges in respect of 782 acres and 17 guntas. The preliminary notification was the subject matter of the said meeting. It is in respect of the said lands there were objections which were upheld. However, as the said land fall within the layout as per Section 20 of the Act, the authority decided to impose betterment tax. 25. The preliminary notification was the subject matter of the said meeting. It is in respect of the said lands there were objections which were upheld. However, as the said land fall within the layout as per Section 20 of the Act, the authority decided to impose betterment tax. 25. Second resolution No.177/03 relates to the note put up by the authority and for sanction of the scheme under Section 18 of the Act. It is stated therein that, in all, they have proposed to acquire 1532 acres 17 guntas of land out of which objections to acquire lands to the extent of 782 acres 17 guntas is up held. As the aforesaid lands from part of the scheme under Section 20 of the Act, they have decided to levy betterment tax. The said proposal was approved in the said meeting. The proceedings of the Authority clearly shows that for remaining extent of 750 acres, objections were over-ruled as the said land is suitable for forming layout, as it is vacant. 26. The last of the said resolution is Resolution No.104 of 2004. It is specifically refers to imposition of betterment tax in respect of private layouts in BSK IV Stage, Further Extension of Sir. M. Vishweshwaraiah Layout and Further Extension of BSK IV Stage. After referring to the earlier two resolutions and based on the latest calculation made by the concerned officials, in the said resolution they resolved to impose levy of Rs.30/- per sq.ft. in respect of BSK VI Stage and Rs.40/- per sq.ft. in respect of other Stages. 27. It is thereafter, the B.D.A. issued notices informing the petitioners that the Commissioner of the B.D.A. by his order dated 10.6.2002 and 11.9.2002 has approved imposition of Rs.30/- per sq.ft. as betterment charges, they were requested to pay the said amount in the Canara Bank, BDA Extension Counter. They made it clear that this amount would not include the water charges, sewerage charges, electricity charges, and street light charges. Such endorsements were issued to the petitioners on different dates. Admittedly, all of them have paid the said amount to the B.D.A. It is thereafter, one more endorsement has been issued acknowledging receipt of the aforesaid amount and giving no objection to the petitioners to develop their properties. One such endorsement is dated 24.3.2004. It is thereafter the impugned endorsement is issued. Admittedly, all of them have paid the said amount to the B.D.A. It is thereafter, one more endorsement has been issued acknowledging receipt of the aforesaid amount and giving no objection to the petitioners to develop their properties. One such endorsement is dated 24.3.2004. It is thereafter the impugned endorsement is issued. After acknowledging the aforesaid facts, the petitioners were informed that the authority had no power to impose betterment tax. After discussion with the Principal Secretary, they came to know that the said imposition of betterment tax is not legal and proper and therefore, they have taken decision to refund the said amount and proceed with acquisition. Therefore, all these petitioners were called upon to return the challans under which such payments were made to the authority and receive the amounts paid in the said challans. It is those impugned endorsements, which are now challenged in these proceedings. One such endorsement, which is impugned in these writ petitions is as under: LANGUAGE 28. Before we consider the legality of this impugned endorsement, it is necessary to look into the scheme of the Act and what a development scheme under the Act means: WHAT IS A DEVELOPMENT SCHEME 29. Chapter III of the Act deals with development Schemes. Section 15 of the Act, deals with the power of Authority to undertake works and incur expenditure for development. Sub-section (1) of Section 15 provides that the Authority may draw up detailed schemes (hereinafter referred to as “development scheme”) for the development of the Bangalore Metropolitan Area. Sub-Section (2) to Section 15 deals with new or additional development scheme. Every development scheme under Section 15 should contain the particulars mentioned in Section 16 of the Act which reads as under:- “16. Sub-Section (2) to Section 15 deals with new or additional development scheme. Every development scheme under Section 15 should contain the particulars mentioned in Section 16 of the Act which reads as under:- “16. Particulars to be provided for in a development scheme: Every development scheme under Section 15.- (1) shall, within the limits of the area comprised in the scheme, provide for.- (a) the acquisition of any land which, in the opinion of the Authority, will be necessary for or affected by the execution of the scheme; (b) laying and re-laying out all or any land including the construction and reconstruction of buildings and formation and alteration of streets; (c) drainage, water supply and electricity; (d) the reservation of not less than fifteen per cent of the total area of the layout for public parks and playgrounds and an additional area of not less than ten per cent of the total area of the layout for civic amenities. (2) may, within the limits aforesaid provide for.- (a) raising any land which the Authority may consider expedient to raise to facilitate better drainage; (b) forming open spaces for the better ventilation of the area comprised in the scheme or any adjoining area; (c) the sanitary arrangement required; (3) may, within and without the limits aforesaid provide for the construction of houses:. 30. A reading of the aforesaid provision makes it clear that a Development Scheme should contain the particulars mentioned in the aforesaid Section. Sub-section (1)(a) of Section 16 categorically states that, every development scheme shall within the limits of the area comprised in the scheme provide for the acquisition of any land which, in the opinion of the Authority, will be necessary for or affected by the execution of the scheme. Therefore, the said provision provides for acquisition of land for two purposes. Firstly, any land which will be necessary for execution of the scheme. Secondly, any land which will be affected by the execution of the scheme. Therefore, it is clear that all the lands notified under the scheme may not be required or necessary for execution of the scheme. Even the lands which would be affected by the execution of the scheme could be the subject matter of acquisition and would form part of the scheme. 31. Therefore, it is clear that all the lands notified under the scheme may not be required or necessary for execution of the scheme. Even the lands which would be affected by the execution of the scheme could be the subject matter of acquisition and would form part of the scheme. 31. After the Authority prepares a development scheme, Section 17 of the Act provides that the Authority shall draw up a notification stating the following facts:- (a) the fact of a scheme having been made; and (b) the limits of the area comprised therein (c) naming a place where particulars of the scheme, a map of the area comprised therein. (d) a statement specifying the land which is proposed to be acquired; and (e) of the land in regard to which a betterment tax may be levied. Therefore, it is clear that out of the land proposed to be acquired some land is necessary for the execution of the scheme, some lands are not necessary for execution of the scheme, but are going to be affected by such execution of the scheme. Both these two types of lands are to be notified separately. In respect of the land which will be affected by the execution of the scheme, the Authority has the power to levy betterment tax. 32. Section (5) of Section 17 provides what the Authority should do after issuing of a notification under sub-section 17(1) of the Act. An obligation is cast on the Authority to serve a notice on every person whose name appears in the assessment list of the local authority or in the land revenue register as being primarily liable to pay the property tax or land revenue assessment on any building or land which is proposed to be acquired in executing the scheme or in regard to which the authority proposes to recover betterment tax, requiring such person to show cause within thirty days from the date of the receipt of the notice, why such acquisition of the building or land and the recovery of betterment tax should not be made. 33. 33. From this it follows that before issuing of a notification under Section 17(1) of the Act, the Authority should make up its mind in respect of the area covered under the scheme to be acquired, then the portion of a land and building comprised in the scheme which is necessary for the execution of the scheme and the portion of the building and land which would be affected, by the execution of the scheme and not required for execution of the scheme. If any building or land comprised in the scheme is not required for execution of the scheme, then, they have been given the power to levy betterment tax in respect of the said building and land. After specifically mentioning the land and building to be acquired and in respect of which betterment tax is to be levied in the notification then they must issue individual notices to such persons requiring them to show cause within thirty days from the date of receipt of the notices, why such acquisition of the building or land and the recovery of betterment tax should not be made. 34. From this the legislative wisdom can be gathered. The Bangalore Development Authority is constituted with the object of promoting and securing the development of Bangalore Metropolitan Area. For that purpose the authority has been vested with the power to acquire, hold, manage and dispose of movable and immovable property, whether within or out side the area in its jurisdiction. To carry out building, engineering and other operations for the purpose of such development and for the purpose incidental thereto, BDA has been given an option of acquiring the building and land, for the purpose of development within the scheme and levy of betterment tax on the building or land which is already developed. This is because, when the Authority intends developing a particular area which is mostly a large extent of area, it is possible that some persons might have developed some small patches of land comprising in that scheme. They might have put up buildings after such development. It is possible that some roads already have been laid. But there may be large extent of land surrounding such developed area which requires to be developed. They might have put up buildings after such development. It is possible that some roads already have been laid. But there may be large extent of land surrounding such developed area which requires to be developed. Therefore, when the scheme is prepared, the said scheme has in its fold the area which is yet to be developed and some small portions of developed area. But nevertheless, once that developed land and building is included in the scheme and the Authority develops the undeveloped area within the scheme, the value of that developed land increases considerably because of its inclusion in the scheme. The owners of such buildings and lands cannot have this benefit of increase in the value of their property without any effort on their part, as that increase is strictly attributable to the action and efforts of the Authority. The law confers power on the Authority to levy betterment tax and recover by way of tax, the benefit which that land owner or building owner gets without any efforts. The object with which these provisions are enacted are very laudable, equitable and no one can have any grievance whatsoever. Therefore, when the Authority does not need this developed building or land, by including in the scheme, before levy of betterment tax, the owner of such land or building is to be informed about the intention on the part of the authority to levy betterment tax and then hear them before such tax is levied. WHAT IS BETTERMENT TAX? 35. Section 20 of the Act deals with levy of betterment tax. The Authority has been vested with the power to levy Betterment Tax. What is a Betterment Tax, is defined under Section 2(d) of the Act, which reads as under: “2(d)-‘betterment tax’ means the tax payable under Section 20 in respect of an increase in the value of the land resulting from the execution of a development scheme.” 36. The Authority has been vested with the power to levy Betterment Tax. What is a Betterment Tax, is defined under Section 2(d) of the Act, which reads as under: “2(d)-‘betterment tax’ means the tax payable under Section 20 in respect of an increase in the value of the land resulting from the execution of a development scheme.” 36. Section 20 of the Act is the charging Section which reads as under: “20-Levy of betterment tax: (1) Where as a consequence of execution of any development scheme, the market value of any land in the area comprised in the scheme which is “not required” “for the execution” thereof has in the opinion of the Authority, increased or will increase, the authority shall be entitled to levy on the owner of the land or any person having an interest therein a betterment tax in respect of the increase in value of the land resulting from the execution of such scheme. (2) Such increase in value shall be the amount by which the value of the land on the completion of the execution of the scheme, estimated as if the land were clear of buildings exceeds the value of the land prior to the execution of the scheme estimated in like manner, and the betterment tax shall be one-third of such increase in value.” 37. Section 20 of the Act empowers the Authority to levy betterment tax. Betterment tax means the tax payable under Section 20 in respect of an increase in the value of the land resulting from the execution of development scheme. The said tax could be levied by the authority, where as a consequence of execution of any development scheme, the market value of any land in the area comprised in the scheme, which is not required for the execution of the scheme, in the opinion of the Authority, increased or will increase. In this context the words “not required for the execution” of the scheme used in Section 20 assumes importance. The development scheme under Section 16 shall provide any land which will be necessary for the execution of the scheme as well as any land which will be affected by the execution of the scheme. The land which will be affected by the execution of the scheme, is a land which is not required for the execution of the scheme. The development scheme under Section 16 shall provide any land which will be necessary for the execution of the scheme as well as any land which will be affected by the execution of the scheme. The land which will be affected by the execution of the scheme, is a land which is not required for the execution of the scheme. But as the said land is comprised in the scheme, the market value of the said land will increase. Therefore, the Authority can propose to recover betterment tax, in respect of such land, at the time of drawing up a notification under Section 17(5) of the Act, and state their intention to do so in the notification itself by way of a statement specifying the land in regard to which betterment tax may be levied. Upon the sanction of the scheme by the Government, the scheme shall be implemented. The Authority has been conferred under Section 19(4) of the Act, the power to alter the scheme, if any improvement can be made in any part of the scheme, and then execute the scheme as altered. While so executing the scheme or the altered scheme, it is possible that the Authority may find any land which is notified for acquisition as necessary for the execution of the scheme is not required for the execution thereof. Then the Authority is entitled to levy on the owner of the land or any person having any interest therein a betterment tax in respect of the increase in value of the land resulting from the execution of the scheme. Therefore, under the scheme of the Act, the Authority can levy betterment tax on two types of lands. They are (a) any land which will be affected by the execution of the scheme and (b) any land which is not required for the execution of the scheme. The condition precedent for levying such betterment tax is increase in market value of the land, as a consequence of the execution of development scheme. The person who is liable to pay the betterment tax may be the owner of such land or any person having an interest therein. 38. What is the betterment tax payable is provided under sub-Section (2) of Section 20 of the Act. The person who is liable to pay the betterment tax may be the owner of such land or any person having an interest therein. 38. What is the betterment tax payable is provided under sub-Section (2) of Section 20 of the Act. The two dates which are important to be taken into consideration by the Authority is the date of commencement of the execution of the scheme, and the date of the completion of the scheme. To levy betterment tax, the Authority need not wait till the scheme is completed in all respects, as it may not be practicable. When the development scheme is sufficiently advanced to enable the amount of betterment tax to be determined, the assessment of betterment tax could be done. In order to assess the betterment tax what is to be found out is, what is the value of the land prior to the execution of the scheme, what is the value of the land on the completion of the execution of the scheme. However, if there are any buildings on the land, for the purpose of calculation of betterment tax, the value of the building is to be excluded. In other words only land value is to be taken into consideration excluding the value of the buildings. If there is any increase in the value, such increase in value of the land is the basis for levying the betterment tax. The betterment tax leviable shall be one third of such increase in value. For example, RAE OF BETTERMENT TAX PAYABLE (a) Market value of land prior to the execution of the scheme Rs. 100/- per sq.ft. (b) Market value of the land on the completion of the scheme Rs. 250/- per sq.ft. (c) Increase in the market value Rs.150/- per sq.ft. Betterment Tax – 1/3rd of increase in value 1/3 x 150 = Rs. 50/- sq.ft. MODE OF ASSESSMENT OF BETTERMENT TAX 39. After specifying the rate of betterment tax under sub-section (2) of Section 20 of the Act, the legislature has provided for the assessment of betterment tax by the authority under Section 21 of the Act which reads as under: “21. 50/- sq.ft. MODE OF ASSESSMENT OF BETTERMENT TAX 39. After specifying the rate of betterment tax under sub-section (2) of Section 20 of the Act, the legislature has provided for the assessment of betterment tax by the authority under Section 21 of the Act which reads as under: “21. Assessment of betterment tax by the Authority: (1) When it appears to the Authority that a development scheme is sufficiently advanced to enable the amount of the betterment tax to be determined, the Authority shall, by a resolution passed in this behalf declare that for the purpose of determining such tax, the execution of the scheme shall be deemed to have been completed and shall thereupon give notice in writing to every person on whom a notice in respect of land to be assessed had been served under sub-section (5) of Section 17 or to the successor in interest of such person, as the case may be, that the Authority proposes to assess the amount of the betterment tax payable in respect of such land under Section 20. (2) The Authority shall then assess the amount of betterment tax payable by each person concerned after giving such person an opportunity of being heard and such person shall, within three months from the date of receipt of notice in writing of such assessment inform the Authority in writing whether or not he accepts the assessment. (3) When the assessment proposed by the Authority is accepted by the person concerned within the period specified in sub-section (2), such assessment shall be final. (4) If the person concerned does not accept the assessment made by the Authority or fails to give the Authority the information required under sub-section (2) within the period specified therein the Authority shall make a reference to the District Court for determining the betterment tax payable by such person.” 40. Therefore, the Authority, by resolution, for the purpose of determining such tax declare that the execution of the scheme shall be deemed to have been completed. The declaration by way of a resolution of the Authority is a condition precedent for levy of betterment tax. The said resolution can be passed only when the development scheme is sufficiently advanced. It is based on the subjective satisfaction of the Authority. By a resolution, the Authority cannot fix the amount of betterment tax payable. No such power is conferred on the Authority. The said resolution can be passed only when the development scheme is sufficiently advanced. It is based on the subjective satisfaction of the Authority. By a resolution, the Authority cannot fix the amount of betterment tax payable. No such power is conferred on the Authority. Elaborate procedure is prescribed under Section 21 of the Act for the assessment and fixation of betterment tax. It is incumbent on the Authority to meticulously follow the procedure prescribed under the Act before determining the betterment tax payable. Section 21 of the Act do not provide for assessment of betterment tax, by way of general or common order. It is because the increase in the value of the market value, may vary from land to land, having regard to its location in the layout and the advantages it gained by the execution of the development scheme and other host of relevant considerations. 41. Therefore, the law contemplates giving of individual notice to every person, in respect of the land to be assessed under sub-section (5) of Section 17 or to the successor in interest of such person, proposing to asses the amount of betterment tax payable in respect of such land under Section 20 of the Act. Here it is to be noticed that the notification drawn up by the Authority under Section 17 contains, a statement specifying the land which is proposed to be acquired and of the land in regard to which a betterment tax may be levied. An obligation is cast on the Authority to serve a notice on every person, whose land is proposed to be acquired and of the land in regard to which a betterment tax may be levied. Even the person whose land was proposed to be acquired for the execution of the scheme is notified under Section 17(1) of the Act, is not required for the execution of the scheme, the Authority shall be entitled to levy betterment tax on such lands. Therefore, before levying such tax individual notice is prescribed to both the categories of the persons. It is also to be seen though both the categories of land is notified for acquisition and notifications are issued under Section 17(1) and 19(1) of the Act, the title of the land continues with the land owners as possession is not taken under Section 16(2) of the Land Acquisition Act. It is also to be seen though both the categories of land is notified for acquisition and notifications are issued under Section 17(1) and 19(1) of the Act, the title of the land continues with the land owners as possession is not taken under Section 16(2) of the Land Acquisition Act. If such land is transferred or alienated, then the person who has to pay betterment tax, and the person affected by such a levy is the successor in interest of such original land owner. Therefore, recognizing this factual position, the law provides for individual notice to such successors in interest of such person, as such person is the person who has to ultimately pay the betterment tax. The said notice informs both the categories of persons, the fact that the Authority proposes to assess the betterment tax under Section 20 of the Act. 42. Sub-section (2) of Section 21 of the Act prescribes the procedure, the Authority has to follow in the assessment of betterment tax. The procedure prescribed is the principle of “Audi alterm parterm”. Every person concerned should have an opportunity of being heard. Therefore, as aforesaid individual notices is contemplated and every person shall be heard and the betterment tax payable by such person assessed, keeping in mind the principle enumerated in sub-section (2) of Section 20. The said assessment of betterment tax should disclose the basis of arriving at the amount of betterment tax payable and the same should be communicated in writing to such person, because the assessee, has the option to accept or not to accept such assessment. If the calculation on the basis of which the tax payable is determined is reasonable, the assessee may accept the assessment. The law contemplates that such assessee should inform the Authority in writing his acceptance or denial of the assessment within three months from the date of receipt of the assessment order. Sub-section (3) provides that, if such intimation of acceptances of assessment is given in writing within the said period of three months, the assessment shall become final. The assessment order attains finality and the betterment tax payable stands crystallized. 43. Sub-section (4) of Section 21 of the Act provides a remedy for persons who are aggrieved by the assessment of betterment tax. The assessment order attains finality and the betterment tax payable stands crystallized. 43. Sub-section (4) of Section 21 of the Act provides a remedy for persons who are aggrieved by the assessment of betterment tax. If the person aggrieved does not accept the assessment or fails to give the Authority his acceptance in writing as prescribed, the Authority shall make a reference to the District Court for determining the betterment tax payable by such person. 44. Section 22 of the Act provides, the manner of payment of betterment tax. The betterment tax determined under Section 21 shall be paid within the time stipulated by the Authority and in such number of installments not exceeding ten as may be specified by the Authority together with interest at such rates as may be prescribed. Section 23 of the Act provides, the mode in which the betterment tax would be recovered if there is default in payment of betterment tax. Section 24 of the Act declares that acceptance of liability to betterment tax under sub-section (3) of Section 21 or payment of the said tax after determination under Section 22 shall not debar subsequent acquisition of the land concerned, if such acquisition is necessary for the purpose of this Act. Therefore, the aforesaid provisions under the Scheme of the Act clearly defines what a betterment tax is, at what stage the betterment tax is to be assessed and calculated, the basis for such betterment tax and the mode of payment and mode of recovery in case of default in payment. 45. Article 265 of the Constitution provides that no tax shall be levied or collected except by authority of law. Entry 49 of List II to the Constitution empowers the State Legislatures to pass laws in respect of tax on lands and buildings. The Karnataka State Legislature has passed the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 where the power is conferred on the authority for levy and collection of tax on lands and buildings. Therefore, the BDA has the power to levy betterment tax. The stage at which and the rate at which the betterment tax to be levied is also clearly set out in the Act. An adjudicatory machinery is also provided in the Act. Sections 20 to 24 is a complete Code in itself in so far levy and payment of betterment tax is concerned. The stage at which and the rate at which the betterment tax to be levied is also clearly set out in the Act. An adjudicatory machinery is also provided in the Act. Sections 20 to 24 is a complete Code in itself in so far levy and payment of betterment tax is concerned. Therefore, the levy of betterment tax and the rate at which the betterment tax is calculated and the resolutions passed in this regard by the BDA are without the authority of law. It is contrary to Sections 20 and 21 of the Act. The power exercised in this regard is ultra vires the statue and not in accordance with the Act. Therefore, the said portion of the resolutions and consequent demands made regarding the payment of betterment tax is illegal, unenforceable and accordingly the same is set aside. Point No. 2:- DOCTRINE OF PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL 46. The doctrine of promissory estoppel is pressed into service to sustain the advantage accrued to the petitioners by the representations in writing made by the BDA to them which is not in dispute. Therefore, it is necessary to know the scope and ambit of this equitable doctrine, before it is applied to the facts of the case. 47. The Apex Court in the case of Collector Of Bombay Vs Municipal Corporation Of The City Of Bombay [ AIR 1951 SC 469 ] recognized the exposition of the principles of promissory estoppel for the first time as under:- “Can the Government be now allowed to go back on the representation, and, if we do so, would it not amount to our countenancing the preparation of what can be compendiously described as legal fraud which a court of equity must prevent being committed. If the resolution can be read as meaning that the grant was of rent-free land, the case would come strictly within the doctrine of estoppel enunciated in Section 115 of the Evidence Act. But even otherwise, that is, if there was merely the holding out of a promise that no rent will be charged in the future, the Government must be deemed in the circumstances of this case to have bound themselves to fulfil it. … Courts must do justice by the promotion of honesty and good faith, as far as it lies in their power.” 48. … Courts must do justice by the promotion of honesty and good faith, as far as it lies in their power.” 48. Subsequently, this principle was built upon in Union Of India Vs Anglo Afghan Agencies [ AIR 1968 SC 718 ] where it was held as under:- “Under our jurisprudence the Government is not exempted from liability to carry out the representation made by it so to its future conduct and it cannot on some undefined and undisclosed ground of necessity or expediency fail to carry out the promise solemnly made by it, nor claim to be the judge of its own obligation to the citizen on an ex-parte appraisement of the circumstances in which the obligation has arisen.” 49. The superstructure of the doctrine with the preconditions, strengths and limitations was outlined by the Apex Court in the decision of MOTILAL PADAMPAT SUGAR MILLS COMPANY LIMITED vs STATE OF U.P. [ (1979) 2 SCC 409 ] where it was held as under: “The law may, therefore, now be taken to be settled as a result of this decision, that where the Government makes a promise knowing or intending that it would be acted on by the promisee and, in fact, the promisee, acting in reliance on it, alters his position, the Government would be held bound by the promise and the promise would be enforceable against the Government at the instance of the promisee, notwithstanding that there is no consideration for the promise and the promise is not recorded in the form of a formal contract as required by Article 299 of the Constitution. Equity will, in a given case where justice and fairness demand, prevent a person from insisting on strict legal rights, even where they arise, not under any contract, but on his own title deeds or under statute. Whatever by the nature of the function which the Government is discharging, the Government is subject to the rule of promissory estoppel and if the essential ingredients of this rule are satisfied, the Government can be compelled to carry out the promise made by it. Since the doctrine of promissory estoppel is an equitable doctrine, it must yield when the equity so requires. Since the doctrine of promissory estoppel is an equitable doctrine, it must yield when the equity so requires. But it is only if the Court is satisfied, on proper and adequate material placed by the Government, that overriding public interest requires that the Government should not be held bound by the promise but should be free to act unfettered by it, that the Court would refuse to enforce the promise against the Government. No representation can be enforced which is prohibited by law in the sense that the person or authority making the representation or promise must have the power to carry out the promise. If the power is there, then subject to the preconditions and limitations noted earlier, it must be exercised. Thus, if the statute does not contain a provision enabling the Government to grant exemption, it would not be possible to enforce the representation against the Government, because the Government cannot be compelled to act contrary to the statute. But if the statute confers power on the Government to grant the exemption, the Government can legitimately be held bound by its promise to exempt the promisee from payment of sales tax. 50. In Century Spinning And Manufacturing Company Limited Vs Ulhasnagar Municipal Council [ (1970) 1 SCC 582 ] the Supreme Court held as under:- If the representation is acted upon by another person it may, unless the statute governing the person making the representation provides otherwise, result in an agreement enforceable at law, if the statute requires that the agreement shall be in a certain form, no contract may result from the representation and acting thereupon but the law is not powerless to raise in appropriate cases an enquiry against him to compel performance of the obligation arising out of his representation.” 51. A Bench of three Judges in Union Of India Vs Godfrey Philips India Limited [ (1985) 4 SCC 369 ] held as under: “That there can be no promissory estoppel against the legislature in the exercise of its legislative functions nor can the Government or public authority be debarred by promissory estoppel from enforcing a statutory prohibition. A Bench of three Judges in Union Of India Vs Godfrey Philips India Limited [ (1985) 4 SCC 369 ] held as under: “That there can be no promissory estoppel against the legislature in the exercise of its legislative functions nor can the Government or public authority be debarred by promissory estoppel from enforcing a statutory prohibition. It is equally true that promissory estoppel cannot be used to compel the Government or a public authority to carry out a representation or promise which is contrary to law or which was outside the authority or power of the officer of the Government or of the public authority to make. We may also point out that the doctrine of promissory estoppel being an equitable doctrine, it must yield when the equity so requires; if it can be shown by the Government or public authority that having regard to the facts as they have transpired, it would be inequitable to hold the Government or public authority to the promise or representation made by it, the Court would not raise an equity in favour of the person to whom the promise or representation is made and enforce the promise or representation against the Government or public authority” 52. The Apex Court in ITC Bhadrachalam Paperboards Vs Mandal Revenue Officer [ (1996) 6 SCC 634 ] held as under:- “If the statute requires that a particular act should be done in a particular manner and if it is found, as we have found herein before, that the act done by the Government is invalid and ineffective for noncompliance with the mandatory requirements of law, it would be rather curious if it is held that notwithstanding such non-compliance, it yet constitutes a “promise” or a ‘representation’ for the purpose of invoking the rule of promissory/equitable estoppel. Accepting such a plea would amount to nullifying the mandatory requirements of law besides providing a licence to the Government or other body to act ignoring the binding provisions of law. Such a course would render the mandatory provisions of the enactment meaningless and superfluous. Where the filed is occupied by an enactment, the executive has to act in accordance therewith, particularly where the provisions are mandatory in nature. There is no room for any administrative action or for doing the thing ordained by the statute otherwise than in accordance therewith. Such a course would render the mandatory provisions of the enactment meaningless and superfluous. Where the filed is occupied by an enactment, the executive has to act in accordance therewith, particularly where the provisions are mandatory in nature. There is no room for any administrative action or for doing the thing ordained by the statute otherwise than in accordance therewith. Where, of course, a matter is not governed by a law made by a competent legislature, the executive can act in its executive capacity since the executive power of the State extends to matters with respect to which the legislature of a State has the power to make laws (Article 162 of the Constitution). The proposition urged by the learned counsel for the appellant falls foul of our constitutional scheme and public interest. It would virtually mean that the rule of promissory estoppel can be pleaded to defeat the provisions of law whereas the said rule, it is well settled, is not available against a statutory provision. The sanctity of law and the sanctity of the mandatory requirement of the law cannot be allowed to be defeated by resort to rules of estoppel. None of the decision cited by the learned counsel say that where an act is done in violation of a mandatory provision of a statute, such act can still be made a foundation for invoking the rule of promissory/equitable estoppel. Moreover, when the Government acts outside its authority, as in this case, it is difficult to say that it is acting within its ostensible authority.” 53. It is indeed the pride of constitutional democracy and rule of law that the Government stands on the same footing as a private individual so far as the obligation of the law is concerned. The former is equally bound as the latter. Under our jurisprudence the Government is not exempted from liability to carry out the representation made by it which are lawful. It cannot on some undefined and undisclosed ground of necessity or expediency fail to carry out the promise solemnly made by it. However, the doctrine of promissory estoppel is an equitable doctrine, it must yield when the equity so requires. No representation can be enforced which is prohibited by law in the sense that the person or authority making the representation or promise must have the power to carry out the promise. However, the doctrine of promissory estoppel is an equitable doctrine, it must yield when the equity so requires. No representation can be enforced which is prohibited by law in the sense that the person or authority making the representation or promise must have the power to carry out the promise. There can be no promissory estoppel against the legislature in the exercise of its legislative functions nor can the Government or public authority be debarred by promissory estoppel from enforcing a statutory prohibition. It is equally true that promissory estoppel cannot be used to compel the Government or a public authority to carry out a representation or promise which is contrary to law or which was outside the authority or power of the officer of the Government or of the public authority to make. If the statute requires that a particular act should be done in a particular manner it should be done in that manner. If the act done by the Government is invalid and ineffective for noncompliance with the mandatory requirements of law, it would not constitute a “promise” or a ‘representation’ for the purpose of invoking the rule of promissory/equitable estoppel. Such a course would render the mandatory provisions of the enactment meaningless and superfluous. Where the field is occupied by an enactment, the executive has to act in accordance therewith, particularly where the provisions are mandatory in nature. There is no room for any administrative action or for doing the thing ordained by the statue otherwise than in accordance therewith. The sanctity of law and the sanctity of the mandatory requirement of the law cannot be allowed to be defeated by resort to rules of estoppel. Moreover, when the Government acts outside its authority, it is difficult to say that it is acting within its ostensible authority. EXTENT OF ITS APPLICATION 54. In the back ground of this settled legal position, to what extent this doctrine of promissory estoppel applies to the facts of this case is to be seen. Statute confers power on the B.D.A to levy betterment tax on the lands notified for acquisition or on the acquired land which is not required for the execution of the scheme. Before determining the betterment tax payable, the B.D.A. shall pass a resolution declaring that for the purpose of determining such tax the execution of the scheme shall be deemed to have been completed. Before determining the betterment tax payable, the B.D.A. shall pass a resolution declaring that for the purpose of determining such tax the execution of the scheme shall be deemed to have been completed. In the instant case such resolutions are passed. The same was communicated to all the beneficiaries of the said resolution. They were called upon to pay betterment tax. On the representation of the B.D.A. and in pursuance of the demand made thereof, the petitioners have paid the amount of betterment tax levied and demanded. The said payment is duly received and acknowledged by the B.D.A. Thereafter, the petitioners have altered their position on such representation by not only paying the amount demanded but also made improvements, constructions on the property in respect of which the betterment tax is levied and collected. In some cases when they were called upon to surrender a portion of the land for the formation of road, the land is surrendered and roads are formed by the B.D.A. It is thereafter the representation is sought to be withdrawn on the ground that it is not sanctioned by law and without authority. 55. The representation made by the B.D.A. is two fold. Firstly, that they intend levying betterment tax in respect of the site and lands in question as they do not need the same for execution of the scheme. Secondly, the site and land owners have to pay at the rate of Rs.30 or 40 per square feet as the case may be. The question is, whether the power conferred upon BDA under the statute to levy betterment tax and at the rate specified or the said representation or promise is contrary to law or is outside the authority or power of the B.D.A. to make? The answer is partially “yes” and partially “no”. 56. Section 20 of the Act, is the charging section which confers power on the B.D.A. to levy betterment tax. Section 21 casts an obligation on the B.D.A. to pass a resolution declaring that the for the purpose of determining the betterment tax, the execution of the scheme shall be deemed to have been completed. It also mandates giving of notice in writing to every person proposing to assess the amount of betterment tax payable. Therefore, the representation made by the B.D.A. is based on the power conferred under the statute. It is not contrary to law. It also mandates giving of notice in writing to every person proposing to assess the amount of betterment tax payable. Therefore, the representation made by the B.D.A. is based on the power conferred under the statute. It is not contrary to law. It is not outside the authority or power of the B.D.A. Therefore, the B.D.A. can legitimately be held bound by its promise to levy betterment tax by giving up the site and land from acquisition, as the site and land owners have paid the betterment tax levied and improved their properties thus altering their position. Courts must to do justice by the promotion of honesty and good faith, as far it lies in their power. Since the doctrine of promissory estoppel is an equitable doctrine, it must yield, when the equity so requires. There is no prohibition in law for enforcing the said representation as such a representation is sanctioned under law. It is legal and valid and is not tainted with any illegality. 57. In so far as determination of betterment tax is concerned, the BDA has resolved to levy betterment tax at the rate of Rs.30/- and Rs.40/- per sq.ft. The said levy is contrary to Section 21 of the Act. Section 2(d) defines ‘betterment tax’ means the tax payable under Section 20 in respect of an increase in the value of the land resulting from the execution of a development scheme. The betterment tax represents the increase in value of the land resulting from the execution of a scheme. The betterment tax shall be one-third of such increase in value. It is statutorily provided under Section 20(2) of the Act. Section 21 deals with assessment of betterment tax by the authority. After the authority decides to levy betterment tax for the purpose of determining the tax payable it has to issue a notice under sub-section (1) of Section 21 of the Act. The said notice should contain a proposal to assess the amount of betterment tax payable. It is only after giving an opportunity to the owners of the sites or lands in respect of which betterment tax is proposed to be levied it can determine the tax payable. After such determination, the BDA shall inform the owner of the land and site the betterment tax assessed. The owner has to inform the authority in writing whether or not he accepts the assessment. After such determination, the BDA shall inform the owner of the land and site the betterment tax assessed. The owner has to inform the authority in writing whether or not he accepts the assessment. When such assessment is accepted by the person concerned, such assessment shall be final. If the person concerned does not accept the assessment, then the authority shall make a reference to the District Court for determining the betterment tax payable by such person. Admittedly, in the instant case the said procedure prescribed for assessment of betterment tax is not followed by the BDA. If the act done by the authority is invalid and ineffective for non compliance with the mandatory requirements of law, it would not constitute a promise or representation for the purpose of invoking the rule of promissory / equitable estoppel. Such a course would render the mandatory provisions of the enactment meaningless and superfluous. Where the field is occupied by an enactment, the authority has to act in accordance therewith, particularly where the provisions are mandatory in nature. There is not room for any administrative action or for doing the thing ordained by the statute otherwise than in accordance therewith. When the Statute meticulously provides the mode in which this tax is to be levied and collected, the Authority should strictly act in conformity with the said provisions. It is well settled that where a power is required to be exercised by certain authority in a certain way, it should be exercised in that manner or not al all, and all other modes of performance are necessarily forbidden. (HUKUM CHAND SHYAM LAL vs UNION OF INDIA { AIR 1976 SC 789 }. 58. Therefore, when the statute defines what is meant by betterment tax, then incorporates a charging section and also provides how the betterment tax is to be calculated and the procedure for assessment of the betterment tax and also provides for remedy against the person affected by such determination, ignoring these statutory provisions, if the BDA passes a resolution just fixing a particular amount as betterment tax without any basis and contrary to the mandatory requirements of statutory provisions and then makes a representation, it is neither a promise nor a representation in the eye of law to attract the doctrine of promissory estoppel. In determination of such betterment tax, public interest is involved. In determination of such betterment tax, public interest is involved. Any action of the BDA contrary to such public interest is unenforceable. Therefore, the representation of the BDA to give up land from acquisition, as it is not required for the execution of the scheme, is not outside its authority or power. It can legitimately be held bound by its promise and is enforceable against the BDA. However, the levy of betterment tax is not in accordance with law and in fact it is contrary to law. It is neither a promise nor representation in the eye of law. Therefore, the BDA cannot be held bound by the said representation. It is unenforceable. Therefore, the BDA has to levy betterment tax in accordance with law as indicated above, and the petitioners have to pay the same if they want to retain the advantage arising out of the valid representation made by the BDA, namely giving up their land from acquisition. RE: OTHER COTENTIONS IT was contended by the learned counsel for the BDA what is collected is the betterment charges and not betterment tax and, therefore, the aforesaid provisions have no application. The power to levy should flow from statute. Otherwise such a levy is without the authority of law. What the statute provides is the levy of betterment tax. Statute do not provide for levy of betterment charges. By merely describing it as betterment charges, the authority cannot absolve of its responsibility of not acting in accordance with the mandate of law. Therefore, there is no substance in the said contention. 60. It was contended that the BDA has no power to collect betterment charges in respect of the land which is the subject matter of acquisition which is yet to vest in the State itself and, therefore, the levy was a mistake and the BDA want to retrace its steps. This argument ignores the fact the betterment tax is leviable not only in respect of land which is acquired and not required for the scheme but also the lands which are likely to be affected by the acquisition. Therefore, there is no substance in the said contention. It appears the BDA has issued the impugned notices on the ground that they have acted contrary to the provisions of the Act without knowing the correct legal position and, therefore, in law they have a right to retrace its steps. Therefore, there is no substance in the said contention. It appears the BDA has issued the impugned notices on the ground that they have acted contrary to the provisions of the Act without knowing the correct legal position and, therefore, in law they have a right to retrace its steps. As set out above in so far as taking a decision to give up from acquisition, lands notified for acquisition on the ground that it is not necessary, the BDA has the power and authority to do so. It is not a case of acting without authority. Therefore, on that ground they cannot go back and retrace the steps. They also have the power to levy betterment tax but has to be levied in the manner provided under the Act which they have not done. Therefore, they have to retrace the step in so far as the procedure they have followed and the calculation they have made in so far as levying of betterment tax is concerned which is permissible in law and they are permitted to do so. 61. IT was contended all the persons to whom the notices were issued are not before the Court and only a small portion are before the Court and the majority of them are watching these proceedings. Though in these Writ Petitions each of the petitioner is seeking for an individual relief, the grant or refusal to grant such relief is based on the findings of this Court regarding the power of the BDA to levy betterment tax and at what rate by interpreting the provisions of the statute. It is not dependent on the facts of each case. That is a common question of law which arise for consideration in all these Writ Petitions and, therefore, once the law is declared, authority is bound to give effect to the same, irrespective of the fact whether all the persons affected by that are before this Court challenging their actions and the Court is granting relief to them or not. May be those persons who are not willing to pay the betterment charges after calculating by resorting to the procedure prescribed under law and as directed by this Court, they can give up the advantage of their lands being given up from acquisition. May be those persons who are not willing to pay the betterment charges after calculating by resorting to the procedure prescribed under law and as directed by this Court, they can give up the advantage of their lands being given up from acquisition. But, if they want the lands to be given up from acquisition, then they are liable to pay the betterment charges to be levied by the authority in terms of the provision of this Act as indicated in this decision. They cannot avoid the liability. 62. It was also contended on behalf of the authority that Section 24 of the Act do not debar subsequent acquisition of the land concerned if such acquisition is necessary for the purposes of this Act and, therefore, the Authority is justified in refunding the betterment tax levied and collected and proceed with the acquisition. Sections 24 of the Act reads as under:- “24. Payment, etc., no bar to future acquisition. Acceptance of liability to betterment tax under sub-section (3) of Section 21, or payment of the said tax after determination under Section 22 shall not debar subsequent acquisition of the land concerned, if such acquisition is necessary for purposes of this Act. 63. A bare perusal of the said Section makes it clear that even after collection of betterment tax if the land notified for acquisition is given up from acquisition as being not necessary, still it is open to the authority if such lands becomes necessary to acquire the land. With the imposition of betterment tax and collection of the same, the acquisition proceedings initiated in respect of the land comes to an end. If the authority wants the land again it is open to them to issue a fresh notification for acquisition and then proceed to acquire the land. This is clear from the words “subsequent acquisition” used in the Section. Therefore, they have no power to return the betterment tax and proceed with the acquisition. Therefore, the contention by virtue of the said provision, notwithstanding their decision to levy betterment tax and give up the land from acquisition, they can continue with the earlier acquisition of the land without any substance. If they intend acquiring the land, they should issue fresh notification and then proceed to acquire the land. MATTER OF CONCERN 64. Therefore, the contention by virtue of the said provision, notwithstanding their decision to levy betterment tax and give up the land from acquisition, they can continue with the earlier acquisition of the land without any substance. If they intend acquiring the land, they should issue fresh notification and then proceed to acquire the land. MATTER OF CONCERN 64. The three resolutions referred to supra by which the BDA has resolved to levy betterment tax clearly exposes the callousness with which this power of acquisition is exercised by the Government and Authority to formulate a scheme of providing residential sites to needy citizens. The law is observed more in breach. It clearly demonstrates not only blissful ignorance of laws but also scant respect of the law. It clearly points out the shortcomings in the preparation of the scheme by the BDA in the first instance. It is obvious that before notifying the land for acquisition, proper attention is not given to find out the existing position, i.e., if, in the land which falls within the scheme, whether already buildings have come up and people are residing, and what are the developmental activities which has taken place. Though power to acquire is not disputed, the said power before it is exercised should be exercised with more care and caution. The law provides for levy of betterment charges in respect of those properties which fall within the scheme and which is going to be affected by the development of a layout by the BDA and provides for levy of betterment tax after hearing such land owners. The said procedure is rarely followed by the BDA. On the contrary even those developed land or buildings are included in the scheme and notified for acquisition. When objections are filed pointing out the said facts instead of giving relief to such deserving persons, in most of the cases they are denied the relief to which they are entitled to in law. On the contrary, the lands where there is no development at all are dropped from acquisition, obviously for extraneous consideration. Money, power, nearness to the seat of power and a host of other factors come into full play behind the scene for dropping the acquisition proceedings. In fact a new breed of professionals, as a class, have come into existence who have specialized in the art of getting the lands denotified from acquisition proceedings. Money, power, nearness to the seat of power and a host of other factors come into full play behind the scene for dropping the acquisition proceedings. In fact a new breed of professionals, as a class, have come into existence who have specialized in the art of getting the lands denotified from acquisition proceedings. Politicians, bureaucrats, land mafia and other professionals are all partners in this lucrative enterprise. That is how in Bangalore, next to IT industry, this real estate business is the most attractive and lucrative business resulting in people who are nothing in real life have become stinking rich and powerful overnight. Thanks to real estate business. The money from this business has spread its tentacles in all walks of life, thus polluting the health and culture of the society. After considering the objections, when the scheme is submitted by the BDA to the Government for approval, hardly there is any application of mind by the Government while according sanction to the scheme. It is almost automatic and mechanical. The affected persons have no say in the matter at that stage. Their elected representatives are no better. If really the recommendation made by the BDA is flawless, they have considered all genuine objections and their recommendation is based on merit and the Government do not find any justification to reconsider and interfere with the said recommendation, after according sanction to the scheme, the Government should see that the scheme is implemented in letter and spirit. But, unfortunately I reality the conduct of the Government is otherwise. After the Government accords sanction to the scheme, a final notification is issued making known the intention to acquire the land, as the Government has accorded sanction. Then a spate of requests are made to the Government for denotification of the land. Without any reason or rhyme, again for extraneous consideration, at the instance of the professionals who again become active behind the scene, indiscriminately lands are denotified. Obviously, again it is for a price which is not accounted anywhere. 65. When the statue expressly states, if while implementing the scheme the Authority finds that any land notified for acquisition is not required for the execution of scheme, Section 20 empowers them to levy betterment tax. Obviously, again it is for a price which is not accounted anywhere. 65. When the statue expressly states, if while implementing the scheme the Authority finds that any land notified for acquisition is not required for the execution of scheme, Section 20 empowers them to levy betterment tax. Even if the Government wants to denotify a land after final notification, when such lands are denotified a duty is cast on them to levy and collect the betterment tax. When the statue provides for levy of betterment tax on a land which is effected by acquisition and on a land which is not required for implementation of the scheme after the acquisition, non-collection of betterment tax in respect of a land which is denotified from acquisition is an act which is illegal and contrary to law and against the public interest. Such an owner of the land walks away with his land with all benefits accrued or attached to it by virtue of the developmental scheme and the formation of a layout by the BDA. In reality his land would become a gold mine and he enjoys the benefit at the cost of public exchequer and the innocent public at large. It is that which has made the real estate in the City of Bangalore lucrative business and cause for circulation of unaccounted hard cash into the system. It is unfortunate neither the Government nor the BDA has applied its mind in this regard in spite of the legislature in its wisdom has passed an enactment providing sufficient safeguards. The only inference that could be drawn is not that they are not aware of the law but, they are the beneficiaries of such illegal actions. These provisions are deliberately ignored. It is a matter of serious concern which requires immediate attention by all the concerned who have respect for the rule of law, well being of the society, interested in protecting public property and public interest. 66. One instance of arbitrary exercise of this power of acquisition giving up the acquisition could be gathered from the resolution No.177/2003 referred to supra. A perusal of the same shows an extent of 1,532.17 acres was notified for acquisition for Banashankari VI Phase Further Extension. After issue of 17(1) notification under the Act, they received 2,258 objections. 66. One instance of arbitrary exercise of this power of acquisition giving up the acquisition could be gathered from the resolution No.177/2003 referred to supra. A perusal of the same shows an extent of 1,532.17 acres was notified for acquisition for Banashankari VI Phase Further Extension. After issue of 17(1) notification under the Act, they received 2,258 objections. In the enquiry it was noticed that they have notified lands in respect of which order of conversion was passed for non-agricultural purposes. In some cases unauthorized constructions had come up which had been sold, in some cases houses are constructed and families were living and in some cases there were horticultural operations. Upholding the objections of such persons an extent of 782.17 acres was given up from acquisition and only in respect of 750 acres 19(1) notification came to be issued. It only demonstrates the callousness on the part of the BDA in drawing up a development scheme and virtually there is no due diligence and no proper homework done before formulating the scheme. Though right to property is no more a fundamental right guaranteed to the citizens of this country under the Constitution of India, still the Constitution recognises such right as a Constitutional right under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. The authorities under the Act cannot play with such rights of the citizen without proper verification, without finding out the nature of the land, to what use it has been put to. In total derogation of such rights of the citizens of this country, such lands cannot be included in the scheme. It only shows want of proper application of mind on the part of the persons who are in charge of this drawing up of developmental schemes. The very fact that more than 50% of the land which is notified for acquisition is given up from acquisition after consideration of objections shows that no proper enquiry and survey of land is made before formulating the scheme. Such is the callousness on the part of the authorities in exercise of the statutory powers. It gives raise to a doubt whether these acquisitions are really bona fide and these acquisitions would serve the object sought to be achieved by enactment of this piece of legislation. There is total lack of professionalism in discharging duties. Such is the callousness on the part of the authorities in exercise of the statutory powers. It gives raise to a doubt whether these acquisitions are really bona fide and these acquisitions would serve the object sought to be achieved by enactment of this piece of legislation. There is total lack of professionalism in discharging duties. It is that which results in corruption, loss of faith in the system and untold suffering and misery to innocent persons. This has given raise to new professionals who do not need any learning but who are specialists in maneuvering things and getting things done for extraneous consideration. This had led to the growth of the middlemen who made it a profession and mint money from nothing. 67. After the final notification is issued, we notice a spate of Writ Petitions are filed before this Court contending discrimination and non-consideration of tenable objections filed in pursuance of a notice under Section 17(1) of the Act. Many times the Court finds substance in the said contentions and the final notifications are quashed calling upon the authorities to reconsider the objections. In fact in many of the Writ Petitions though owners of the land are petitioners in the Writ Petitions it is prosecuted by their Power of Attorney Holders who would have agreed to purchase the lands notified for acquisitions, most of them, the land mafia. Arguments canvassed in Court is that the poor farmers land is taken away, his only source of eking out livelihood is deprived and the land acquired is meant for affluent persons who live in cities and, therefore, the acquisitions are to be struck down. Sometimes these arguments are accepted and acquisitions are stuck down. It emboldens the land mafia and encourages them to carry on their activity boldly without any fear. We find those who do not get any relief in Courts then approach the Government for denotifications of the land sought to be acquired. Denotifications are done by the Government setting at knot the judgments of the Court upholding the acquisition. It emboldens the land mafia and encourages them to carry on their activity boldly without any fear. We find those who do not get any relief in Courts then approach the Government for denotifications of the land sought to be acquired. Denotifications are done by the Government setting at knot the judgments of the Court upholding the acquisition. Even after acquisitions are upheld, layout is formed, we find most of the time, the beneficiaries are persons who are well placed in life and the locals and persons who are living in Bangalore for more than 3 to 4 decades are unable to get a site to enable them to construct a house over their head in the lifetime. When we look at the whole scenario a stage has been reached to ponder whether these enactments are required in the present if the provisions therein are not adhered to by the Government as well as the authority. If the existing law is not achieving the object or a hindrance to the planned development of the city, the legislature has to act, take note of requirements of the society as on today, should make necessary amendments to the existing law or if they so chose, pass a new law. But, instead of doing that, they cannot ignore the law, act contrary to the law and make the existing law a mockery. It would be an anti thesis of rule of law. Therefore, it is high time that a re-look at the law if necessary is to be done or at any rate a public debate should begin. We cannot be passive spectators to what is happening in the society in the name of acquiring land in public interest and for planned growth of Bangalore City. I hope the persons who are at the helm of administration and the legislatures would look at this menacing problem and take appropriate remedial steps before it may go out of hand, in the interest of the society and do the needful. 68. For the aforesaid reasons, I pass the following order:- (a) All the Writ Petitions are partly allowed. (b) The decision of the authority to give up from acquisition the lands which are notified for acquisition and collect betterment charges in respect of the same is upheld. 68. For the aforesaid reasons, I pass the following order:- (a) All the Writ Petitions are partly allowed. (b) The decision of the authority to give up from acquisition the lands which are notified for acquisition and collect betterment charges in respect of the same is upheld. (c) The decision of the authority to collect betterment tax at the rate of Rs.30/- or Rs.40/-as the case may be as resolved by them in their resolutions referred to in the body of the order is declared as one without authority and consequently any levy made on that basis is also without the authority of law and are liable to be quashed and consequently the question of withdrawing such levy which is non-est in the eye of law would not arise. (d) In the light of the aforesaid declarations, the impugned communication issued by the authority to these petitioners informing them to receive back the betterment tax paid is hereby quashed. (e) The authority shall initiate appropriate proceedings under the Act for levy of betterment tax in respect of the lands which are notified if any for levying the betterment tax under Section 17(1) of the Act or the lands which are given up from acquisition on the ground that it is not necessary while implementing the scheme under Section 20 of the Act and determine the tax payable and levy the same. (f) The amount already paid by the petitioners and persons who are similarly placed which are in deposit with the authority shall be kept with them and it shall be adjusted towards the betterment tax to be levied after following the procedure and payable by such owners of lands. (g) Those persons who are not willing to pay the betterment tax to be determined in accordance with law are at liberty to take back the amount, giving up the benefits accrued to them by the decision of the BDA. (h) No costs.