Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 493 (KAR)

S. R. Constructions v. State of Karnataka

2013-04-10

A.S.BOPANNA

body2013
Judgment : In all these petitions, the respective petitioners have sought for issue of writ of certiorari to quash the circular dated 28.09.2012 issued by the Commissioner, Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike ('BBMP' for short). The petitioners have also sought to quash the demand notices of different dates which are issued to the respective petitioners. 2. The petitioners are all owners of different extents of lands which are described in their respective petitions. The said lands were earlier situate within the jurisdiction of 7 City Municipal Council, one Town Municipal Council and 110 villages which were included within the Bangalore Mahanagara Palike i.e. the larger urban area so as to constitute the BBMP under the notification dated 16.01.2007. On the said area coming into the larger urban area of BBMP and according to BBMP, on finding that several properties therein did not have proper infrastructure, the same was to be provided in these areas. As it would involve huge expenditure, the improvement charges are sought to be imposed on the property owners and collect the same. Initially when such demand was made as pre-requisite for change of khatha, such action was questioned in W.P.No.5035/2008 and connected petitions. While disposing those petitions on 21.07.2008, this Court was of the view that in the absence of Rules, such demand cannot be made. 3. Thereafter the Rules were framed and the improvement charges were levied and sought to be recovered prior to change of khatha. Being aggrieved by the same, the landowners had once again assailed it in W.P.No.18014/2011 and connected petitions which were disposed of on 20.04.2012. Though the power to levy was upheld, the method and manner of determination of improvement charges was found fault with and the matter was ordered to be reconsidered. Though the BBMP has filed an appeal against the order of the learned Single Judge in W.A. No.2954/2012 and the same is stated to be pending consideration and refund of the collected amount is stayed, the BBMP acting on the direction of the learned Single Judge has re-worked the imposition of improvement charges after issuing the circular dated 28.09.2012. The petitioners are therefore before this Court assailing the said circular and also the demand made based on such circular. 4. The petitioners are therefore before this Court assailing the said circular and also the demand made based on such circular. 4. Though the learned senior counsel and the other learned counsel representing different petitioners have addressed arguments touching upon the aspects relating to the power of BBMP to collect such improvement charges with reference to Section 446 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act ('KMC Act' for short), the validity of the Rule framed thereunder and in answer, the learned senior counsel for the BBMP sought to justify the power exercised, in my opinion, it is not necessary to notice the contentions on those aspects specifically and overburden this order as the said contentions do not arise for consideration herein. I am of the said opinion for the reason that the said contentions had arisen for consideration in W.P.No.18014/2011 and connected petitions. The learned Single Judge has already considered those aspects and answered the contentions. If at all any of the parties are aggrieved, they can only urge the same in the pending appeal. It would not be expedient or proper for this Court to go into those aspects once over again but it would only be appropriate for this Court to proceed further based on the findings that had been rendered therein. 5. To be more precise about the scope of consideration herein, it would be appropriate to refer and notice the questions that were framed for consideration in the earlier petitions and the manner in which they were answered. They read as hereunder: i) Whether the rules framed are beyond the Rule Making Power of the State and are therefore ultra virus? ii) Whether the improvement charge levied is a tax or is it in the nature of a fee collected for service rendered. If so, is there any quid pro quo? iii) Whether Rule 5, which enables the collection of improvement charges at the time of registration of Khata and the impugned circular which states that - failure to collect the amount will subject the Officers concerned for action are contrary to the provisions of Section 114 of the Act? iv) Whether the impugned Circular in so far as it lays down the quantum of improvement expenses to be collected for sites having different dimensions at different rates is arbitrary, discriminatory and is therefore, unsustainable? iv) Whether the impugned Circular in so far as it lays down the quantum of improvement expenses to be collected for sites having different dimensions at different rates is arbitrary, discriminatory and is therefore, unsustainable? v) Whether the Rule Making Authority has the power to make the Rules operational retrospectively? 6. In answer to the first point, with reference to Section 466 of KMC Act and Rule 2(b) of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations (Recovery of improvement expenses) Rules, 2009 ('Rules' for short) the nature of the work to be carried out is considered and it is held that the Rule framed to recover the expenses incurred from the property owners who would be directly or indirectly benefited is not ultra vires. In answer to the second point raised, it is held 'quid pro quo' does not mean individual service, but the burden has been cast on BBMP to show that such newly added localities or the extensions have been extended such benefit. In that view, it was held that the Rules framed was not arbitrary nor is it having unguided power. While considering the third point the manner of recovery as authorised under Rule 5 was considered keeping in view the provision contained in Section 114 of KMC Act. In that regard, with reference to the recovery provided under Section 467 of KMC Act and on noticing that improvement charges due would be a charge on the property has held that Rule 5 which has conferred power to recover in lumpsum is ultra-vires. Hence it is held that the mode of collection of improvement charges is as provided under Section 467 of KMC Act. 7. Thereafter while considering the question of improvement charges imposed at different rates on owners having sites of different dimensions, it is held that such differential levy is not justified. It is suggested that before such levy is made, a systematic exercise is to be carried out to list the infrastructure and the services provided or intended to be provided to the area included, on a by and large consideration of 'quid pro quo'. The exercise undertaken earlier was held as not sufficient as it was not a systematic exercise and differential rates were levied on the property owners depending on the size and dimension of the propriety owned. The retrospective effect given to the Rule was however upheld. 8. The exercise undertaken earlier was held as not sufficient as it was not a systematic exercise and differential rates were levied on the property owners depending on the size and dimension of the propriety owned. The retrospective effect given to the Rule was however upheld. 8. The sum and substance of the conclusion therein is that the BBMP would be entitled to recover improvement charges towards infrastructure provided or to be provided in respect of the area which has come within its jurisdiction but such determination of the amount to be collected should be uniform, irrespective of the size of the property and should be based on a systematic exercise carried out to determine the same. The recovery of such amount is to be made as provided under Section 467 of the KMC Act and cannot be linked to change of khatha. 9. In the above backdrop, since the primary questions relating to imposition of improvement charges have already been decided, the validity of the procedure adopted for determining the amount towards improvement charges and the nature of recovery resorted to based on the impugned circular requires to be examined. Hence, the procedure followed and the manner in which the improvement charges has been determined is the only aspect which needs consideration. As noticed, all other aspects relating to the power to impose improvement charges has already been considered in the earlier batch of petitions and any grievance in that regard from either side can only be considered in the pending writ appeals. 10. In the instant petitions, while assailing the method of the fixation of the quantum of improvement charges, the learned senior counsel and the other learned counsel for the respective petitioners would point out that in the earlier order, this Court has directed that a systematic exercise to list out the infrastructure rendered or to be rendered in the newly added localities and that by and large, there is 'quid pro quo' is to be determined and only then the improvement charges could be imposed and recovered. It is contended that such exercise has not been carried out since the documents relied on and produced as Annexures to the objection statement does not disclose such determination. The cost of entire construction and facilities cannot be burdened on the property owners. It is contended that such exercise has not been carried out since the documents relied on and produced as Annexures to the objection statement does not disclose such determination. The cost of entire construction and facilities cannot be burdened on the property owners. Under Section 87 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act and BWSSB Act, the amounts incurred by those authorities has been imposed on the property owners. In the earlier order itself, it was noticed that the cost in BDA Layout is Rs.460/-per sq. mtrs and as such Rs.550/- per sq mtr imposed presently is excessive when the rate is lesser towards development of virgin lands including land cost. Further, such improvement charges is not levied on BDA sites, but levied on a developer though the layout is developed in similar manner as the development is made by BDA as conditions would be imposed for development. Hence, the same amounts to discrimination. The decisions in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh and others vs. Deepak Fertilizers & petrochemical Corporation Ltd. [ (2007)10 SCC 342 ]; Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Ltd vs. Ayodhya Prasad Mishra and another; [ (2008)10 SCC 139 ] and Aashirwad Films vs. Union of India and others [ (2007)6 SCC 624 ] are relied on. The imposition amounts to double levy. In some cases, development charges have been paid to the earlier dispensation which had jurisdiction over the area. The method of calculation made in respect of sites and on the larger extent of undivided lands by adopting the calculation on sq.meter basis is not intelligible and is without application of mind. It is contended that if the same method is applied to the land on acre basis, the land owner would be paying for the area measuring about 45% which would have to be provided as roads and common amenities which would revert to the planning authority on development being completed. Further, the improvement charges are being collected from only the people who approach BBMP for change of katha, approval of plan etc., which is not sustainable. In any event, the payment being sought as a precondition for issue of khatha, plan etc., is contrary to the earlier order of this Court. 11. Further, the improvement charges are being collected from only the people who approach BBMP for change of katha, approval of plan etc., which is not sustainable. In any event, the payment being sought as a precondition for issue of khatha, plan etc., is contrary to the earlier order of this Court. 11. The learned senior counsel for the respondents would contend that what is levied is a fee for the infrastructure provided and as such, there is quid pro quo, but it need not be on individual basis, but it is for the property owners in the area in general. The learned senior counsel would point out that the only question for consideration herein is to decide the amount fixed and the manner in which it is done. In that regard, the committee constituted for the said purpose after the earlier order of this Court had sought information from different Wards of four zones. Each zone consists of several wards. The Zonal officers provided information to the committee on the basis of the work that was carried out from the year 2007 and the work that is to be completed. Two wards in each zone were taken at random and the improvements that were required to be made and which was listed out, were taken into consideration. The rate as prescribed by the PWD for such civil works was taken into consideration and the expenses that would be incurred was projected and the average value was worked out and for the remaining percentage of the work, the amount was calculated. The standing committee considered the same and approved the improvement fee to be charged at Rs.550/- per sq mtr. The BBMP council has thereafter approved the same. The budget proposal was thus taken into consideration. Based on all the above materials, the charge was fixed at Rs.550/- per sq. mtr and was shown in the impugned circular which would work out to Rs.51/- per sq ft and the derivative thereof is worked out for the sites of different dimension and also for the land on acre basis. The BBMP has to deposit large amounts to BWSSB for the purpose of providing water and sewage connections. Hence, the decision is not unreasonable. Further as contemplated under Section 467, the instalment facility is also provided and a circular dated 05.01.2013 is issued which is in confirmity. The BBMP has to deposit large amounts to BWSSB for the purpose of providing water and sewage connections. Hence, the decision is not unreasonable. Further as contemplated under Section 467, the instalment facility is also provided and a circular dated 05.01.2013 is issued which is in confirmity. The collection of the improvement fee in respect of larger extent on acre basis is also in the interest of the ultimate purchasers as otherwise the developers may dispose of the property without payment of the improvement charges. 12. Having noticed the rival contentions and since it is seen that all aspects of the matter had been considered in W.P.No.18014/2011 and connected petitions and this Court had found fault with the method of determination of the improvement charges and had thereafter indicated the manner in which it is to be done, it is necessary to notice the observations made in paragraph-48 of the order dated 20.04.2012 which reads as hereunder: 48. It is thus, clear that there must be infrastructural facilities already provided or to be provided to certain properties that have been benefited or likely to be benefited for such improvement expenses. Though, the relationship between the service rendered and the fee collected cannot be established with is mathematical exactitude, there should be relationship between the service rendered and the fee collected and that relationship has to be reasonable. Unless, the Corporation makes a systematic exercise to list out the infrastructure and the services that is required or intended to be rendered to the newly added localities or extensions into the BBMP and unless it shows that by and large there is a quid pro quo, it cannot be said that there is a reasonable relationship between the levy of the fee and the service rendered. Unless, such reasonable relationship between the two is established, the action cannot stand the test as laid down in the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of SRINIVASA GENERAL TRADERS VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH - (1983)4 SCC 353 . Again in the recent decision of the Apex Court in the case of BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VS. AIRCRAFT EMPLOYEES CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., AND OTHERS in CIVIL APPEAL NOS.7503-7537/2002 DECIDED ON 24.01.2012, the Apex Court after referring to the judgment in Srinivasa General Traders case and several other judgments rendered earlier including the judgment in the case of OM PRAKASH AGARWAL ETC., VS. AIRCRAFT EMPLOYEES CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., AND OTHERS in CIVIL APPEAL NOS.7503-7537/2002 DECIDED ON 24.01.2012, the Apex Court after referring to the judgment in Srinivasa General Traders case and several other judgments rendered earlier including the judgment in the case of OM PRAKASH AGARWAL ETC., VS. GIRI RAJ KISHORI AND OTHERS -AIR 1986 SC 726 and in the case of ITC LIMITED VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA -1985(SUPPL.) SCC 476, it is made clear that the element of quid pro quo is not possible or even necessary to be established with arithmetical exactitude. But it must be established broadly and reasonably that the amount was being spent for rendering services to those on whom the burden of fee falls. In the said judgment, the Apex Court while repelling the challenge made to the condition imposed by the BDA requiring the House Building Cooperative Society Limited for augmentation of electricity and transportation etc., has held that the same could not be termed as the demand made by the BDA that amounts to levy of tax and was ultra vires Article 265 of the Constitution. (emphasis supplied) 13. From a reading of the emphasized portion, it is seen that this Court had clearly indicated that unless a systematic exercise to list out the infrastructure and the services that is required or intended to be rendered to the newly added locality or extensions is made and unless it shows that there is by and large quid pro quo, the levy of fee would not be justified. 14. That being the case, in order to contend that a systematic exercise has been undertaken by listing out the infrastructure to be provided and the cost that would be incurred for providing the same, calculated on the basis of the PWD rates, the learned senior counsel for the respondent has relied upon the report dated 21.07.2012 of the committee which had been set up for the said purpose (Annexure-R.1). The details of the work required to be undertaken as listed out, as also the cost incurred in respect of the sub-divisions in each zone which is enclosed to the report at Annexure-R.2 is also referred to. 15. The details of the work required to be undertaken as listed out, as also the cost incurred in respect of the sub-divisions in each zone which is enclosed to the report at Annexure-R.2 is also referred to. 15. In order to consider as to whether the said exercise would satisfy the requirement as indicated by this Court, a perusal of the report of the committee would disclose that the committee met on four dates indicated therein and had taken note of the expenses that would be incurred towards road construction, drainage and street lighting in respect of the layout. Such expenses that would be required in Mahadevapura, Bommanahalli, Yelahanka and Rajarajeshwarinagar divisions were taken into consideration. The expenses to be incurred was taken in relation to the area of the land for which it was provided and accordingly, the cost per sq. mtr was worked out in respect of the four zones which were at Rs.878/-, Rs.1070/-, Rs.1054/- and Rs.880/- respectively. The average of the expenses in relation to the four zones was taken at Rs.970/- per sq. mtr. Since at an earlier point some amount had been collected and expended, a deduction of 40% was made towards the expenses already incurred and therefore the cost was worked out at Rs.560/- per sq. mtr. and was rounded of to Rs.550/- per sq.mtr and recommendation for collection of the same was made. The standing committee and the Council has approved the same. In that view, the circular dated 28.09.2012 was issued fixing the said amount and directing collection of the same in the manner indicated therein. 16. The above process would no doubt indicate that certain procedure has been followed, but the question for further consideration is as to whether the manner in which the amount has been determined would indicate that it is based on a systematic exercise to list out the infrastructure provided and required to be provided in the newly added localities or extensions. To look into this aspect of the matter, at the outset, it is also necessary to notice that the improvement charges sought to be collected is only in respect of particular type of properties by exercising the power under Section 466(b) of the Act and not all properties which are situate within BBMP jurisdiction. It is therefore sought to be recovered as provided under the Rules that has been framed for the purpose. It is therefore sought to be recovered as provided under the Rules that has been framed for the purpose. To that extent, there is no difficulty, as such imposition is held as not discriminatory as seen from the decision in the case of Bangalore Development Authority vs. Aircraft Employees' Co-operative Society Ltd and ors ( 2012(3) SCC 442 ) relied upon by the learned senior counsel for the respondents and that decision was also considered in the earlier order. 17. In that view, a perusal of the Karnataka Municipal Corporation (Recovery of improvement expenses ) Rules 2009 at Rule 2(b) defines 'improvement expenses' while Rule 3 would provide with regard to the type of property liable for levy of expenses incurred as a fee. It would be appropriate to extract the said provision and notice the requirement for the purpose of better understanding: 2(b) "improvement expenses" means such of the improvement expenses incurred by the Commissioner under clause (b) of section 466 of the Act and also includes expenses pertaining to the following works namely:- i) formation of roads by metaling, asphalting, leveling of roads, improvement of roads, concreting of roads, construction of bridges and flyovers to reach a group of houses or locality or an extension; ii) formation of drains, improvement of drains, coverage of drains; iii) providing water supply, sewerage, system treatment plants, construction and improvement storm water drains; iv) providing street lighting, road median lighting, park, play ground and other lights in public places; and v) such other works and civic amenities as may be notified by the State Government, by notification. 3. Property liable for levy of expenses.-Improvement expenses shall be levied and recovered on the properties that are directly or indirectly benefited as a result of the improvement expenses incurred by the Commissioner towards creation of basic infrastructure and for such other works to improve the general living condition of citizens and includes expenses incurred on land newly converted from agriculture use to nonagricultural purposes." (emphasis supplied) 18. If Rule 2(b) and the emphasized portion in Rule 3 are construed together, the amount incurred by the Commissioner towards improvement expenses should be expenses incurred towards creation of basic infrastructure and for such other works to improve the general living conditions of the citizens and includes expenses incurred on land newly converted from agriculture use to non-agricultural purpose. If Rule 2(b) and the emphasized portion in Rule 3 are construed together, the amount incurred by the Commissioner towards improvement expenses should be expenses incurred towards creation of basic infrastructure and for such other works to improve the general living conditions of the citizens and includes expenses incurred on land newly converted from agriculture use to non-agricultural purpose. Though the learned senior counsel for the respondents has relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sona Chandi Oal Committee and ors vs. State of Maharashtra [ (2005)2 SCC 345 ) to contend that when a fee is being imposed, it is not necessary that it should be uniform or that quid pro quo is a must and an overall purpose of the imposition, if shown is sufficient, the said decision would not be of much assistance herein since the fee sought to be collected is based on a Rule which enumerates the purpose of such levy on a particular class of property owners. Hence, what is provided in the Rules is to be construed. 19. Hence, while keeping the instant Rules in perspective, what cannot also be lost sight is that even in respect of the other areas which fall within the jurisdiction of the Mahanagara Palike i.e., the areas which constituted BMP prior to 2007, the BBMP has a duty to maintain and improve the common facilities. For example, Section 222, 266 etc., of the KMC Act enjoins upon the Corporation to maintain the public streets, water lines, sewers, repair and make improvements thereto which are necessary for public safety or convenience. For example, Section 222, 266 etc., of the KMC Act enjoins upon the Corporation to maintain the public streets, water lines, sewers, repair and make improvements thereto which are necessary for public safety or convenience. Therefore, though the collection of improvement charges cannot be said as discriminatory, when the BBMP is even otherwise required to carry out maintenance and improvement work in all areas and when such work is carried out by incurring the expenses from its funds which are collected by way of property tax etc, whether the details of the construction provided in Annexure-R.2 would by itself be sufficient to indicate that the said expenses are not for the regular maintenance but is incurred towards creation of basic infrastructure as provided under Rule 2(b) and 3 of the Rules is a matter which requires consideration, before this Court accepts the mere preparation of the estimate for a particular year as a systematic exercise carried out by listing out the infrastructure that is required to be undertaken as indicated by this Court in its earlier order. 20. In that regard, in the instances taken at random by the respondents for consideration of the same by the committee in respect of two wards each from the four different zones which fell for consideration before the committee and relied upon before this Court as Annexure-R.2 series needs closer scrutiny. If the list containing the work relating to Rajarajeshwarinagar Zone is taken as an instance, it is indicated as the BBMP estimate for 2011-12 and the nature of the work to be undertaken in the particular area as listed out therein. Though it indicates the expenses that would be incurred for undertaking the said work during the said financial year, it is for the period after nearly four years since the area has come within the jurisdiction of BBMP. From the document by itself, it cannot be gathered as to whether the works listed therein is by way of creation of infrastructure or as to whether it is towards the regular maintenance and upkeep work of the area like in all other areas including the old BMP area regarding which in any event a duty is cast on the BBMP as indicated above. The committee though is stated to have met on four occasions and have ultimately resolved on 21.07.2012, the consideration therein does not indicate that the committee has bestowed its attention to any other materials available on record to conclude that the said area when it was handed over to the BBMP did not have the basic infrastructure and as such the amount being incurred is for creation of such infrastructure. The estimate looked into is for the year 2011-12 since the amount worked out therein is indicated in tabular form in the report and not the list of entire work undertaken from 2007 to provide infrastructure and the additional work that is required, except making a vague reference that the Engineering department has estimated from 2008-09 onwards and the rate would be as stated therein. In the absence of the same, as to how the committee has arrived at a conclusion that 40% work is already undertaken and the rate for remaining work was fixed is not clear and the entire consideration appears to be very casual which certainly cannot be accepted as a systematic exercise. 21. An objective consideration was required more so due to the fact that the liability for payment of improvement charges is being cast only on the property owners whose property is situate within the new areas which has been included in the larger urban area to constitute the BBMP and such imposition of improvement charges is not levied on the property owners who own properties in the areas which existed within the BMP jurisdiction before it became BBMP. Therefore, when a higher liability is cast on one class of citizens though as a fee on quid pro quo basis for a specific purpose as provided under the Rules, that class of citizens should be satisfied that they are getting more facilities than the usual facilities which is being provided to all the other citizens so as to bring it on par with the old area which has such infrastructure, which this area did not have and to that extent, the quid pro quo as indicated would be satisfied though it need not be with mathematical exactitude as indicated in the earlier order. Hence, in my opinion, at least the minimum exercise of ensuring the same should have been undertaken. 22. Hence, in my opinion, at least the minimum exercise of ensuring the same should have been undertaken. 22. As noticed, while presently fixing the amount at Rs.550/-per sq mtr, the exercise carried out is to look into the work that would be undertaken in two wards in each of the four zones for the years 2011-12. At that stage of determination, such random consideration would no doubt be sufficient and there need not be reference to every nook and corner, but what is conspicuous is that even in respect of those two wards, there is no demarcation as to what is provided as infrastructure since 2007, though having only taken note of the estimate of 2011-12. Certainly, the work of maintenance and upkeep such as asphalting of roads, construction/improvement of culverts, street lighting etc would be carried out in the old BMP area also in view of the statutory duty under the Act and in this regard, the estimate towards the expenses for the years 201112 would have also been prepared in respect of those areas as well. The committee has not made any reference to that aspect of the matter to consider as to whether there is a marked difference towards the expenses incurred or to be incurred in the different wards of the old BMP areas as compared to the presently included BBMP areas so as to conclude that if there is greater expenses incurred in the newly added areas of BBMP, the same is towards the additional infrastructure that was required to be provided in the newly added areas. Such random sampling as done presently could have been done in respect of the old area for such comparison and it could have also been one of the exercise to compare the nature of the additional expenses and thereafter to conclude that such additional expenses is for creation of infrastructure and as to whether the additional expenses incurred in newly added area as compared to the old area should alone be construed as the improvement expenses keeping in view the definition of Rule 2(b) and requirement of Rule 3 of the Rules as it provides regarding creation of infrastructure. 23. 23. It is in that regard, the contention that the earlier local authority within whose jurisdiction the property was situate would have provided same amount of facility also becomes relevant and the BBMP in all cases cannot construe it as if they are developing the land for the first time as being done by BDA, KHB etc. Such other methods which would have also resulted in a systematic consideration could have been followed instead of merely listing out the work that is to be undertaken and divide the expenses for the areas situate in the Ward and working it out for the sites of different dimension and on acre basis. The rationale behind such imposition also does not appear to be fair. As per the calculation presently provided if a property owner owns one acre of land in the area which has come within the BBMP, he would have to presently pay the improvement charges of Rs.22,26,580/-. This has no relation to the manner in which the property would be utilized by such owner if it is still vacant or the manner in which it has been developed, if such property is already developed in a particular manner. At first blush, it will appear as a buy back. No doubt, if the property is developed to construct huge complex either residential or commercial, it will be a burden on the existing infrastructure which may not be sufficient. But, at the same time, there are also bye-laws in place to regulate these aspects from the stage of grant of licence. The manner in which it should be imposed on different types of utilization of such properties are all matters which should go into a systematic exercise to be done by the respondents who are not only the statutory authorities, but are also experts in the field. The decision taken by them should appeal to the Court as fair and reasonable. The present exercise undertaken does not give such impression. 24. One other aspect of the matter is also that the improvement charges are being collected only in respect of private layouts which are not approved by BDA or any other local authority and land converted for non-agriculture. The present exercise undertaken does not give such impression. 24. One other aspect of the matter is also that the improvement charges are being collected only in respect of private layouts which are not approved by BDA or any other local authority and land converted for non-agriculture. This has been stated in the additional objection statement and it is clarified that the layouts formed by KHB, BDA, KIADB, KSSIDC etc, no improvement charges are levied, which in effect would mean that it would not be imposed on owners of sites in private layout if it is approved by BDA or any other local authority. Hence, that exercise to separate the grain from the chaff also has to take place either before the improvement charge is worked out or before it is demanded. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners has also referred to some of the petitioners having formed the layout in accordance with law and also having deposited amount with BWSSB, BESCOM etc. Similarly, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.45223/2012 has referred to payment of betterment charges made to the panchayat. Therefore, in such cases, the owners should have an opportunity to establish compliances when the property was situate in the earlier dispensation so as to eliminate double levy. Hence, at least after determination and when the demand is made, an opportunity should be available to seek deduction or adjustment on submission of proof of payment. A method should be deviced in this regard if the respondent would not be in a position to do it earlier. If this and all the other aspects noticed above are taken into account, the present exercise followed would not satisfy the requirement stated by this Court. The matter requires reconsideration by the respondents. 25. That being the position, the impugned circular dated 28.09.2012 fixing the amount of improvement charges at Rs.550/-per sq. mtr and seeking recovery of the same is not sustainable. Further, the demand notices issued to the petitioners in the present circumstance is also liable to be set aside. Despite this Court in the earlier order dated 20.04.2012 holding that the payment of improvement charges cannot be made a condition for change of khatha, in several of the endorsements issued to the petitioners in response to the application for change of khatha/registration of khatha etc., such condition is imposed. Despite this Court in the earlier order dated 20.04.2012 holding that the payment of improvement charges cannot be made a condition for change of khatha, in several of the endorsements issued to the petitioners in response to the application for change of khatha/registration of khatha etc., such condition is imposed. This Court had considered the provision in Section 467 of the KMC Act and has held that in such circumstance, change of khatha cannot be made conditional. No doubt, subsequently a circular dated 05.01.2013 is issued which is inconsequential at this stage. 26. In the result, the following; ORDER i) The above writ petitions are allowed in part. ii) The circular dated 28.09.2012 which is impugned in all these petitions is quashed. iii) As a consequence, the demand notices issued for payment of improvement charges at the rate of Rs. 550/- per sq.mtr. and also making it a pre-condition for registration/ transfer / bifurcation / amalgamation of khatha, grant of sanction plan etc. is held unsustainable. iv) The statutory respondents are directed to consider the request of the petitioners for registration / transfer / bifurcation /amalgamation of khatha, grant of sanction plan etc., in accordance with law, if they are otherwise entitled to. v) The respondents are reserved liberty to re-do the process afresh to determine the appropriate improvement expenses in the light of the observations made in the order dated 20.04.2012 in W.P.No.18014/2011 and connected petitions and the observations made hereinabove. vi) The improvement charges paid in part or in full by any of the petitioners, will remain subject to re-determination and adjustment or adjustment towards any other future demands. vii) In view of disposal of the petitions, all pending IAs also stand disposed. viii) No order as to costs.