ORDER : L. Narayana Swamy, J. 1. These writ petitions are filed seeking to quash the demand notices issued by the Revenue Officer of Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike demanding betterment charges. It is also prayed for quashing the circular issued by the Corporation authorising the Revenue Officers to collect the same. Some of the writ petitions pertain to seeking direction to effect khata in respect of the properties of the respective petitioners without insisting for payment of betterment charges. 2. The facts of the case in all the writ petitions are more or less one and the same. The facts as stated in W.P. Nos. 56465 and 56724 to 56734 of 2014 in which statement of objection is filed by the respondent, with a prayer to consider the said objections in respect of all the writ petitions are stated in this order, to avoid repetition. 3. The petitioner is stated to be a developer. The demand of developmental charges is based on circular dated 1-7-2014 at the rate of Rs. 250/- per sq. meter in respect of the converted properties falling under the jurisdiction of newly added areas to the Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike and Rs. 200/- in respect of 100 old wards which were already existed. Earlier the Corporation had issued circular on 7-11-2007 prescribing different rates to meet the expenses towards the improvement of revenue areas that have become a part of Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike pursuant to the reconstitution of Bangalore Mahanagara Palike into Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (hereinafter referred to as 'BMP' and 'BBMP', respectively for short). 4. It is stated that this Court in Janapriya Engineers Syndicate (India) Private Limited, Bangalore v. Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike, Bangalore and Others, 2010 (1) Kar. L.J. 80, W.P. No. 5035 of 2008 (LB-BMP) quashed the said circular. It is held therein that Section 114 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short), does not permit a demand for improvement charges or betterment charges as a precondition to the registration of khata of immovable properties and also relying upon the decisions rendered earlier by this Court in Asian Institute of Rural Development, Bangalore v. Bangalore City Corporation, 2003 (1) Kar. L.J. 478 : ILR 2003 Kar. 2478 and Kamal Chopra v. Commissioner, Corporation of the City of Bangalore, ILR 1988 Kar. 2416. L.J. 478 : ILR 2003 Kar. 2478 and Kamal Chopra v. Commissioner, Corporation of the City of Bangalore, ILR 1988 Kar. 2416. It is also noted that there is absolutely no specification with regard to the expenses incurred, amounts that would be expended and what are the reasonable expenses likely to be incurred by the first respondent-Corporation and that there are no rules framed under Section 466(b) of the Act. 5. Pursuant to the above order the State of Karnataka by its notification dated 3-2-2010 by virtue of Section 421 read with Section 466(b) of the Act framed Karnataka Municipal Corporations (Recovery of Improvement Expenses) Rules, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules' for short) to come into effect with effect from 17-1-2007. The BBMP issued a circular dated 7-2-2011 directing all the Revenue Officers to collect improvement charges at some specified rates therein. 6. The above notification and the rules that were framed were subject-matter of challenge in W.P. No. 10814 of 2014 (LB-BMP), wherein the aforesaid notification and Rule 5 of the said Rules which provide for collection of improvement charges at the time of registration of khata and the determination of amount of improvement expenses were declared as illegal and directed the respondent to register the Khata of the properties for which the applications have been made. The BBMP was directed to carry out an exercise for estimation of the development expenses to be incurred and based on that collect expenses which could be different in different areas of the city based on what developments have already been taken place and the developmental activities to be carried on. 7. The respondent-Corporation challenged the above order in W.A. No. 2954 of 2012. However, the said W.A. No. 2954 of 2012 and connected matters were dismissed as withdrawn by the judgment dated 14-1-2015 at the instance of the Corporation. 8. While the above writ appeals were pending, the respondent-corporation issued circular dated 28-9-2012 which was the subject-matter of challenge in S.R. Constructions, Ananthapura, Andhra Pradesh v. State of Karnataka and Others, 2013 (3) Kar. 8. While the above writ appeals were pending, the respondent-corporation issued circular dated 28-9-2012 which was the subject-matter of challenge in S.R. Constructions, Ananthapura, Andhra Pradesh v. State of Karnataka and Others, 2013 (3) Kar. L.J. 588, W.P. No. 40 of 2013 (LB-BMP) and connected matters and this Court by the order dated 10-4-2013 allowed the writ petitions directing the BBMP to register the khata and however reserved liberty to redo the process afresh to determine the appropriate improvement expenses in the light of the observations made in Purvankara Projects Limited, Bangalore v. The Urban Development Department, Bangalore and Others, 2012(4) Kar. L.J. 361, W.P. No. 18014 of 2011 and connected matters. However, without considering the orders of this Court in W.P. No. 18014 of 2011 and W.P. No. 40 of 2013 and connected matters in proper manner, linking the issuance of khata to the payment of improvement charges, the Corporation has again issued circular dated 1-7-2014 without complying the orders of this Court. It is stated, the respondents could not have issued the said circular when this Court has declared Rule 5 of the Rules as ultra vires and could not have demanded the payment of such charges as a condition precedent for issue of khata. 9. It is stated, the Corporation has failed to assess the requirement of each of the wards and areas and has taken a shortcut to determine a universal improvement charges linking the same to the issuance of khata. Nothing is forthcoming with regard to details of the works to be carried out in the concerned ward and the estimate of the works to be carried out or the works that have already been carried out therein. It is also not known how the said development charges are payable by a fully developed apartment complex, for which a developer has paid large amounts towards development charges, infrastructure charges, plan sanction fees, enormous amount of taxes that are collected there from and the like and in some cases, the developers themselves having contributed for various other civic facilities like roads etc. Further it is not known as to why the developed 100 wards have to pay the improvement charges. 10. It is stated that the impugned circular and endorsement are not in accordance with Sections 466 and 467 of the Act. Further it is not known as to why the developed 100 wards have to pay the improvement charges. 10. It is stated that the impugned circular and endorsement are not in accordance with Sections 466 and 467 of the Act. It makes it clear that the improvement expenses should be payable by such owner or occupier of such premises and cannot be imposed on one and all and cannot subject all the properties within the jurisdiction of the BBMP for payment of development charges. 11. It is stated, the properties which are developed into multistoreyed complex being residential/commercial, there would be a peculiar nature of imposition of improvement charges in view of the fact that at the time of obtaining sanction plans etc., necessary charges for khata would have been paid for the entire land desired to be developed. In this scenario by the impugned notification and the circular, the respondents would seek to impose impugned improvement charges on each unit. This would amount to payment of charges twice over, which is not intended under law. Apart from the land rates, several payments have to be made to several authorities under various heads to own a property, get the same registered, occupy the property, construct a house etc. Along with this, if the unreasonable improvement charges are levied, the cost of land or a dwelling unit would rise steeply causing immense hardship to the citizens. Hence the petitioners have filed the above writ petitions seeking for the above reliefs. 12. The B.B.M.P. has filed statement of objections contending inter alia that the impugned circular and endorsement are issued after following the observations made by this Court in W.P. Nos. 7614 to 7616 of 2011 and 40 of 2013 and connected matters. As developers, the petitioners are developing the said lands into residential and commercial projects and they have obtained katha in respect of entire property. The petitioners' property are situated in an undeveloped revenue packet. They have not taken permission for developing the property in question as contemplated under Sections 14, 14-A, 15, 16 and 17 of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961 from the Planning Authority. The petitioners' property are situated in an undeveloped revenue packet. They have not taken permission for developing the property in question as contemplated under Sections 14, 14-A, 15, 16 and 17 of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961 from the Planning Authority. If any person or Developer intends to develop the land from agriculture to non-agricultural purpose, they have to comply the provisions of Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961 and they have to take permission from the Competent Planning Authority as per the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act and Rules framed thereunder. In the case on hand, except taking alleged conversion of the land as contemplated under Section 95 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, the petitioners have not obtained permission from the Town Planning Authority and the properties are situated within the administrative jurisdiction of Municipal Authorities, who is having power to impose such conditions and grant permission to develop the land after collecting the necessary fee for providing basic amenities to the area in question as contemplated under Sections 466 and 467 and the Rules read with Section 505 of the Act. If the properties are developed illegally without approval from the Competent Planning Authority and those properties are assessed for tax, subsequently, the occupiers will demand to provide all the above facilities. The BBMP will not be in a position to provide such facilities in the absence of payment of such expenses. The layouts formed after obtaining permission from the Planning Authorities like BMRDA, BIAAPA etc., are included within the administrative jurisdiction of BBMP, it need not spend any amount for providing the civic amenities because those facilities are available. If once the petitioners developed their property, the next duty of the Corporation is to provide all facilities for which, the petitioners have to pay the improvement expenses to provide such facilities to them. 13. After disposal of W.P. No. 5035 of 2008 vide order dated 21-7-2008, the State Government notified to frame Rules in exercise of power conferred under Section 421 read with Section 466(b) of the Act and Gazette was made available to the public to file objections. No objections and suggestions were received. The Government exercising power under Section 421 of the Act, enacted the Rules. The said rules and the circular were challenged in W.P. No. 18014 of 2011 and connected matters. No objections and suggestions were received. The Government exercising power under Section 421 of the Act, enacted the Rules. The said rules and the circular were challenged in W.P. No. 18014 of 2011 and connected matters. This Court allowed the writ petition reserving liberty to the Corporation to undertake exercise afresh as to quantifying the improvement expenses and its collection by and large observing quid pro quo. 14. In the meanwhile BBMP issued another circular dated 28-9-2012 and fixed the improvement expenses of Rs. 550/- per sq. mtr. The same was subject-matter of challenge in W.P. No. 40 of 2013 and connected matters, which were disposed of on 10-4-2013, the BBMP constituted a committee for assessment of improvement expenses for the properties included within the limits of BBMP subsequent to year 2007. The Committee collected information from the respective Zonal Officers with regard to the work to be carried out and what is the estimation cost of each work on the basis of the current schedule of rates and inspected some of the areas and conducted several meetings and deliberated the subject of assessing the improvement expenses strictly on the observations made in two batch of writ petitions and arrived at a final cost for construction/formation and carry out the above work as they have to spend Rs. 634.18/- per sq. mtr. After taking into consideration the improvements already undertaken since 2007, the rates are fixed at Rs. 344/- per sq. mtr. To the properties which are coming within the limits of CMC situated in an undeveloped area and not paid improvement expenses to the then CMC and Rs. 430/- per sq. mtr. for the lands situated in 110 villages which are included in BBMP limits and Rs. 100/- per sq. mtr. for the properties for which the betterment charges are not paid which are situated within the limits of old 100 Wards which came within the jurisdiction of the then BMP in the year 1995. 15. The report of the Committee was placed before the Standing Committee (Tax and Finance), which after discussion resolved to fix certain rates at Rs. 350/- per sq. mtr. for the properties converted land from agricultural to non-agricultural purpose, de-notified lands which are acquired by the BDA, KIADB, KHB etc., which are measuring up to 1000 sq. mtrs. and Rs. 300/- per sq. mtr. 350/- per sq. mtr. for the properties converted land from agricultural to non-agricultural purpose, de-notified lands which are acquired by the BDA, KIADB, KHB etc., which are measuring up to 1000 sq. mtrs. and Rs. 300/- per sq. mtr. For the properties - converted land from agricultural to non-agricultural purpose, de-notified lands which are acquired by the BDA, KIADB, KHB etc., which are measuring above 1000 sq. mtrs. by resolution dated 21-1-2014. Thereafter the Corporation Council discussed the very same subject in its meeting on 29-1-2014 and after detailed discussions, it had reduced the improvement expenses to Rs. 250/- per sq. mtr. for the properties included in the area of BBMP in the year 2007 and Rs. 200/- per sq. mtr. For the properties situated within the limits of old 100 Wards which are included in the year 1995. 16. Pursuant to the resolution dated 29-1-2014 the Commissioner placed note dated 26-5-2014 to impose penalty of 10% on the improvement expenses per year if the party does not pay the same within one year which is approved by the Corporation Council on 28-5-2014. Thereafter, the BBMP issued circular dated 1-7-2014 authorising the respective Revenue Officers to collect the improvement expenses. Therefore, it is stated that the writ petitions lack any merit and are liable to be dismissed. 17. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the entire papers. 18. The learned Counsel for the petitioners submit, the impugned circular does not specify the properties to which the said circular is applicable apart from being bald and without description of the works undertaken or expenses incurred or to be incurred. Rules 3 and 6 specify the properties that are liable for levy of improvement expenses. However, no such specifications have been made in the impugned circular, making it applicable to all the properties, resulting in illegality. The impugned circular and endorsement are not in accordance with Sections 466 and 467 of the Act. Section 466(a) of the Act refers to expenses to be recovered if incurred or to be incurred in respect of the works mentioned therein. The impugned circular and endorsement are not in accordance with Sections 466 and 467 of the Act. Section 466(a) of the Act refers to expenses to be recovered if incurred or to be incurred in respect of the works mentioned therein. Section 466(b) relates to expenses to be imposed as per the rules framed which shall be charged on the premises in respect of which or for the benefit of which the same shall have been incurred and shall be recovered in instalments from the owner or occupier of the premises. Therefore, the charges cannot be imposed on one and all on a universal scale. 19. It is submitted that the Revenue Officer has not maintained any account for the amounts collected or has disclosed the amount that is already available with it, works undertaken using such amounts or the estimates for the works to be undertaken. It is not clear, the Revenue Officer would spend such amount collected from the public towards improvement of any civic amenities coming within the purview of such improvements. The 2nd respondent has no mechanism of proper accounting and audit and has always demonstrated that it is not accountable to the citizen for its expenses. There is a serious doubt as to whether the amounts will be actually utilised for the same ward from which it is collected. There is no nexus between the charges sought to be collected by the respondents and the improvements made or to be made or to impose the improvement charges to be an object to be achieved as the same is not specific and localised. It has failed to assess the requirement of each of the wards and taken a shortcut to determine a universal improvement charges linking the same to the issuance of khata, which is apparently in contempt of the orders of this Court. Details of the works to be carried out in the concerned ward and the estimate of the works to be carried out are not disclosed. It is also not made known how the said development charges are payable by the fully developed apartment complex, for which the developers have paid large amounts towards development charges, infrastructure charges and the like and contributed for various other civic facilities or the 100 Wards which are already developed. 20. It is also not made known how the said development charges are payable by the fully developed apartment complex, for which the developers have paid large amounts towards development charges, infrastructure charges and the like and contributed for various other civic facilities or the 100 Wards which are already developed. 20. It is further contended that there cannot be any precondition of payment of improvement charges for the issuance of khata as is clear from Section 114 of the Act. It is also illegal on the part of the respondents to give effect with retrospective effect opposed to Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Rule making power or extraction of money cannot be permitted to impose tax or other amounts of money retrospectively, except by way of a statute, when no material is produced anywhere substantiating the works undertaken or the benefit conferred on the payers. In respect of multistoreyed complex where improvement charges are sought to be imposed on individual units at the same rates as that of land and despite the increase of the property taxes consequent to increase in the number of units on account of such development and the payment of various charges before commencement of such construction. 21. It is further contended that at the time of obtaining sanction plans etc., necessary charges for khata would have been paid for the entire land desired to be developed. Once the same is developed, khata for individual units has to be made. In this scenario by virtue of the impugned notification as well as the circular, the respondents have sought to impose improvement charges on each unit which would amount to payment of double twice over, which is not intended under law. 22. On the other hand, it is submitted by the learned Counsel for the respondent-corporation that the properties of the petitioners are not situated in the developed area and they have not taken any developmental plan either from the BDA or any other local authorities as contemplated under the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act. There is no proper road, road side drain, underground sewerage line, water connection, electricity line, civic amenities sites, playground and civic amenity sites for establishment of market, police station, Public Health Center, Public School, construction of storm water drain etc., as provided by the respondent-authorities in the developed layout. There is no proper road, road side drain, underground sewerage line, water connection, electricity line, civic amenities sites, playground and civic amenity sites for establishment of market, police station, Public Health Center, Public School, construction of storm water drain etc., as provided by the respondent-authorities in the developed layout. Once the khata is issued, next step is for sanction of plan for construction and thereafter they would demand for facilities on the ground that they are paying property tax. The BBMP has to provide such basic infrastructures to the newly added areas by collecting improvement expenses as contemplated under Sections 466 and 467 of the Act and the Rules made there under. 23. It is submitted, this Court held in the previous writ petitions that the way in which they fixed the different rates for different zones for different dimensions of sites is arbitrary and liberty was reserved to exercise quantifying the improvement expenses and its collection in the light of the observations made in the orders. Accordingly, the committee was constituted, the committee recommended the rates to be fixed. The report of the committee was placed before the Standing Committee (Tax and Finance) and thereafter before the Corporation Council and finally the rates are fixed. After the decision of corporation council the Commissioner declared the improvement expenses under Section 466 of the Act read with Karnataka Municipal Corporations (Recovery of Improvement Expenses) Rules, 2009. Under Section 466 of the Act read with Rule 4 of the Rules, the Commissioner is having power to declare expenses which have benefited or likely to benefit the owner. The Corporation Council consisting of members from all the political parties deliberated the matter and finally unanimously fixed the improvement expenses. It is admitted when the petitioners' property in question is included within the limit of BBMP, it has to provide all facilities not only to the petitioners' property but also to the entire surrounding area. The petitioners' property alone cannot have a separate access with other facilities like water, drainage, electricity, etc. To provide all such facilities to the entire area, the BBMP has to spend additional money. Hence the impugned circular and demands came to be issued. Thus the learned Counsel for the respondent sought to justify the impugned circular and demands made pursuant thereto. 24. To provide all such facilities to the entire area, the BBMP has to spend additional money. Hence the impugned circular and demands came to be issued. Thus the learned Counsel for the respondent sought to justify the impugned circular and demands made pursuant thereto. 24. It is seen from the above that provisions of the Act and the Rules are upheld by this Court. Only the quantification of the improvement charges was directed to be reassessed making certain observations as to the principles of quid pro quo though not arithmetical exactitude is possible in the matter of this nature to say that whatever fee or charges an individual would pay, exact benefit he has to receive from the works to be carried out in the area. 25. In W.P. No. 5035 of 2008 (LB-BMP) disposed of on 21-7-2008, this Court relying upon the decisions in Asian Institute of Rural Development, Bangalore v. Bangalore City Corporation, ILR 2003 Kar. 2478, in which decision in Kamal Chopra v. Commissioner, Corporation of the City of Bangalore, ILR 1988 Kar. 2416 was followed, held that once the party produces necessary documents to change the khata, duty is cast on the officials of the respondent to change the khata and comply with the provisions of Section 114 of the Act. Therefore, the endorsement to the extent that it imposes a precondition for the payment of "melpatu vechcha", is without authority of law, arbitrary and is unsustainable. It is further held in para 8 that: "... the proceedings Annexure-D fall short of the requirement of law and is shown to suffer from infirmities which patently tantamounts to arbitrary exercise of power. It is no doubt true that the first respondent, in the absence of the elected body and the Standing Committees, is entitled to exercise power under Section 466 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, but such exercise of power must be fully justified". Accordingly, impugned circular and demand notices came to be quashed and direction was issued to effect khata if the applications for the said purpose are in order. 26. Pursuant to the above order, the Rules came into being making it to come into force with effect from 17-1-2007. Rule 3 of the Rules deals with "property liable for levy of expenses", which reads as under: "3. Property liable for levy of expenses. 26. Pursuant to the above order, the Rules came into being making it to come into force with effect from 17-1-2007. Rule 3 of the Rules deals with "property liable for levy of expenses", which reads as under: "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 certain 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 non-agricultural purpose." Rule 4 of the Rules deals with "recovery of improvement expenses" which reads as under: "4. Recovery of improvement expenses. - The Commissioner having regard to the expenditure incurred on various infrastructural facilities provided to or to be provided may declare it as improvement expenses under Section 466 and may levy and collect such improvement expenses from the owner or occupier of the undeveloped, partially developed or single unit property or a group of properties or a locality or extension that are assessed or newly added to the Assessment Register and which have been benefited or likely to be benefited by such improvement expenses." Rule 5 deals with "mode of collections", which reads as under: "5. Mode of collections. - Improvement expenses so incurred may be collected from the owner or occupier of the property mentioned in Rule 3 above at the time of registration of Khatha in full sum or in instalments or at anytime and in such manner as the Commissioner may considered to be deems fit." Rule 6, deals with "properties not liable for levy of improvement expenses", which reads as follows: "6. Properties not liable for levy of improvement expenses. - Properties located in the layout formed and developed by the Planning Authority, Urban Development Authorities, Housing Board Layouts and Layout formed by the KIDB, KSSIDC, etc., and the layouts approved by the planning authority and formally transferred to the Local Authority after its all round development as indicated in the approved development plan are not liable for levy of improvement expenses in respect of improvement works already done by said authorities." Rule 8 provides for levy of improvement expenses on properties converted in a single unit order and latter fragmented with proper legal title, which reads as under: "8. Fragmented properties. - Properties converted in single unit order and latter fragmented with proper legal title and approval of the planning or concerned local authority are liable for levy of improvement expenses. However, remaining portion of single unit property gets the sanction of site development plan from the Competent Authority, the remaining portion of the property shall also be liable for payment of improvement expenses." 27. The validity of the above Rules were challenged in W.P. No. 18014 of 2011 (LB-BMP) and connected matters disposed of on 20-4-2012. This Court upheld the validity of the above Rules except Rule 5. The operative portion of the order is extracted herein below: "(i) Rule 5 which provides for collection of improvement expenses at the time of registration of Khata is set aside only to the extent it provides for recovery of the amount at the time of registration of khata. (ii) Provisions made in the said Rule for collecting the full sum is also declared as ultra vires the provisions contained under Section 467 of the Act. (iii) The action of the Commissioner in issuing the impugned Circular determining the amount of improvement expenses to be collected from the owners or occupiers of the sites/lands as specified in the impugned circular, is declared as illegal. (iv) Different rates of improvement expenses fixed for different sites based only on the dimension of the sites is declared as arbitrary and unreasonable. (v) Consequential action taken to reject the request for recording the Khata in favour of the applicants solely on the basis of non-payment of the improvement charges is declared as illegal. (vi) The BBMP is directed to register the Khata in favour of the applicants, provided they have satisfied all the other legal requirements in that regard. (vii) Cancellation of Khata effected on the ground of non-payment of improvement charges is declared as illegal and such actions are hereby set aside, insofar as it pertains to the petitioners. (viii) Liberty is reserved to the BBMP to undertake the exercise afresh of quantifying the improvement expenses and its collection in the light of the observations made above. (ix) If some of the petitioners have already paid the improvement charges as demanded by the BBMP, they will be either entitled for refund of the same or for getting it adjusted towards the other dues payable." 28. (ix) If some of the petitioners have already paid the improvement charges as demanded by the BBMP, they will be either entitled for refund of the same or for getting it adjusted towards the other dues payable." 28. Challenging the above order, the BBMP filed W.A. No. 2954 of 2012 but by the judgment dated 14-1-2015 the writ appeals came to be dismissed on the memo filed by the BBMP stating that "in view of the subsequent circular dated 28-9-2012, 5-1-2013, order dated 10-4-2013 passed in W.P. No. 40 of 2013 with connected cases and another circular dated 1-7-2014 the above writ appeals would not survive for consideration". 29. In W.P. No. 40 of 2013 (LB-BMP) and connected matters disposed of on 10-4-2013 another circular dated 28-9-2012 and demands were the subject-matter. This Court in paras 23 and 24 observed as follows: "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 utilised 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. 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 utilisation 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. 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 BVVSSB, BESCOM etc. Similarly, learned Counsel for the petitioner in W.P. No. 45223 of 2012 has referred to payment of betterment charges made to the panchayat. Therefore, in such cases, the owners should have an opportunity to establish compliance's 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 devised in this regard if the respondent would not be in a position to do it earlier. 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 devised 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." 30. Therefore, what was required of the respondents was to redo the process afresh to determine the appropriate improvement expenses in the light of the observations made in the order dated 20-4-2012 in W.P. No. 18014 of 2011 and connected petitions and the observations made in W.P. No. 40 of 2013 and connected matters disposed of on 10-4-2013. 31. Section 466 of the Act confers power on the Commissioner to declare the expenses on certain works as improvement expenses. Section 466(b) of the Act makes it clear that if the expenses to be recovered have been incurred or are to be incurred in respect of any work mentioned in any Rule made under this Act, wherein Section 466 of the Act is made applicable to such expense, then the Commissioner with the approval of the Standing Committee may declare such expenses to be improvement expenses. Section 467 of the Act lays down the mode of collection of improvement expenses that have been incurred by making it clear that they shall be recovered in instalments at such intervals which has to be determined by the Commissioner exercising his discretion. 32. From the above, it is clear that 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 have 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 are 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. 33. Keeping the above basis for determination of improvement charges, it is to be examined whether the Corporation has exercised power in determining the improvement charges in compliance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules and the directions issued by this Court in the previous writ petitions. 34. A committee was constituted to verify and to arrive at determination of improvement charges to be collected from the owners of the property. The committee is stated to have held meetings on 15-6-2013, 28-6-2013, 9-7-2013, 19-7-2013, 26-8-2013 and 1-10-2013. It is stated in most of the villages newly included within the limits of the Palike, there are no basic amenities provided and to provide the same such as roads, drainages, sewerage system, adopting street lights and maintenance and development works have been taken up. Inspection works are stated to have been taken up by the Committee members including the President in all the ranges, and at the time of inspection the Range Chief Engineers were instructed to estimate the expenditure for each square meter in respect of the works already taken up and yet to be taken up for providing basic facilities at Ward level for the villages newly included and at C.M.C. areas. After getting such particulars that in most of such villages there are no basic facilities provided, the development works have been taken up stage by stage. 40% to 50% of basic facilities have already been provided in the said villages and found development works have not between taken up in full-fledge. The particulars of the works to be taken up in future for providing civic amenities and based on the expenditures incurred by the public works department for the said works, betterment charges arrived at Rs. 430/- per sq. mtr. (50% of Rs. 860/-). The particulars of the works to be taken up in future for providing civic amenities and based on the expenditures incurred by the public works department for the said works, betterment charges arrived at Rs. 430/- per sq. mtr. (50% of Rs. 860/-). It is also mentioned in the report that for providing 50% to 60% of the civic amenities in the earlier C.M.C./T.M.C. areas newly included within the limits of the Palike, the betterment charges is arrived at Rs. 344/- per sq. meter (40% of Rs. 860/-). The expenditure that would be incurred for providing basic facilities to the revenue areas was estimated to be Rs. 200/- per sq. yard by the Municipality. The Government thereupon issued an order to collect the betterment charges at Rs. 100/- per sq. yard for the new areas included and Rs. 50/- per sq. yard for the old areas. This rate was in force in the administrative limits of the Palike till the year 2007. 35. After the orders dated 20-4-2012 and 10-4-2013 passed by this Court, explanations were obtained from the Engineers of the Public Works Department about the development works and keeping in view the works carried on under Section 466(a) of the Act by the earlier City Municipalities, Town Municipalities situated in 5 ranges and it was found necessary to take up new works in these areas to provide sewerage's and rainwater canal system and keeping in view the roads coming within the limits of 111 villages from Gram Panchayats newly included in the year 2007 are to be developed and such other facilities, the rates at which the same has to be collected was arrived at and after placing the same before the Standing Committee for approval and after obtaining its approval with partial modification i.e., at Rs. 250/- per sq. mtr. in respect of areas where conversion was obtained and for 100 Wards of BMP areas Rs. 200/- per sq. meter, the matter was placed before the Commissioner, the impugned circular came to be issued. The Commissioner thereafter put up note as to collection of 10% extra if the owners opt to pay the development charges in instalment beyond one year. 36. As is observed in the earlier two writ petitions, the Corporation has undertaken systematic exercise and has arrived at improvement charges. The Commissioner thereafter put up note as to collection of 10% extra if the owners opt to pay the development charges in instalment beyond one year. 36. As is observed in the earlier two writ petitions, the Corporation has undertaken systematic exercise and has arrived at improvement charges. It is not the case of the petitioners that their properties are not situated in undeveloped area. It is not their case what works stated in the proceedings of the Committee to be carried on, all the works are already carried on and no such works need to be undertaken by the Corporation. The anxiety expressed by the petitioners is only with regard to whether the Corporation would spend the amount so collected in respect of the very work and of their area only. That they can always complain of if the said works are not executed by the Corporation. Though certain preliminary works are executed but the full facilities are not provided is what is found by the concerned officers and members of the Committee in the respective areas. The exercise undertaken by the Corporation to arrive at improvement charges at certain rates is in consonance with the directions issued by this Court in the earlier two writ petitions and the enabling provisions of the Act and the Rules. The rates arrived at by the Committee is subjected to scrutiny and ultimately reduced rate than the one prescribed by the Committee is fixed in the circular. 37. In the matter of this nature, the experts in the field are the best persons to adjudicate the rates at which particular charge or fee is to be collected. The Courts jurisdiction is very limited relating to want of power and jurisdiction. The enabling provisions are already upheld by this Court and only the quantum was sought to be reassessed, which is correctly arrived at by the Corporation by way of the circular. 38. In the case of Bangalore Development Authority v. The Air Craft Employees' Co-operative Society Limited and Others, 2012 (5) Kar. L.J. 214 (SC) : (2012) 3 SCC 442 : 2012 AIR SCW 2534, in Civil Appeal Nos. 38. In the case of Bangalore Development Authority v. The Air Craft Employees' Co-operative Society Limited and Others, 2012 (5) Kar. L.J. 214 (SC) : (2012) 3 SCC 442 : 2012 AIR SCW 2534, in Civil Appeal Nos. 7503 to 7537 of 2002, disposed of on 24-1-2012 following the decision in the case of Sreenivasa General Traders and Others v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others, (1983) 4 SCC 353 and other judgments in Om Parkash Agarwal v. Giri Raj Kishori and Others, AIR 1986 SC 726 and in the case of I.T.C. Limited and Others v. State of Karnataka and Others, 1985 Suppl. SCC 476 the Supreme Court held 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. The Corporation has followed the principles laid down in the above decision and taking into consideration the works to be carried out has arrived at certain rates to be collected by way of improvement charges, which cannot be faulted. There is a reasonable relationship between the levy of the fee and the service rendered and to be rendered. 39. In that view of the matter, the impugned circular and the demand made by the Corporation are justified. The writ petitions are accordingly dismissed. However, the payment of improvement charges cannot be made a precondition for registration/transfer/bifurcation/amalgamation of khata, grant of sanction plan etc., which are to be considered subject to payment of improvement charges either at once or at instalments, in which event owners are to pay interest beyond one year, as the owner/s opt in respect thereof, in accordance with law. If any individual has any grievance as to payment of improvement charges already, he/she can agitate the same before the concerned forum.