JUDGMENT : (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI) Heard the learned counsel for the appellants. 2. Under challenge in the Writ Petition was an order imposing cess/fees for lake rejuvenation under purported exercise of powers conferred by clause (v) of Section 18A(1) of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning (Amendment) Act, 2011 , Amendment Act, 2011 . The aforesaid provision of the Amendment Act, 2011 was also challenged. The learned single Judge relying upon an order dated 21.01.2015 passed in W.P.No.103406/2013 and connected petitions, wherein similar questions were raised, had noted observations made in previous judgments and found that the petition is squarely covered by the order passed in the aforesaid W.P.No.103406/2013, which would enable the Municipal Authorities to impose the cess/fee. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant has filed I.A.No.1/2017 and produced the Karnataka Town and Country Planning (Amendment) Act, 2015 , Amendment Act, 2015 which was published in the Karnataka Gazette Extra-ordinary on 10.09.2015. In Section 7 of which Amendment Act, 2015 it is provided as follows: “ 7. Amendment of Section 18-A. – In section 18-A of the principal Act, the clause (v) shall be omitted.” 4. It is therefore contended that the amendment brought about in Section 18-A of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961 , Act, 1961 by the Amendment Act, 2011 by insertion of clause (v) in Sub-Section (1) of Section 18-A, has now been wiped out of statute books as if the provision never existed. Therefore, the notice/order dated 30.08.2013 that is impugned in the Writ Petition would be a nullity and deserves to be set aside. However, learned Additional Advocate General has stated that no order has been passed against the petitioner under the aforesaid provision of clause (v) of Section 18A of the Act, 1961. Therefore, there is no cause of action which the petitioner had to maintain the Writ Petition. 5. An affidavit has been filed today in Court, which is titled as verifying affidavit, filed by the Commissioner of M/s. Vijayapura Urban Development Authority. In that, it is stated as per Section 18(1A) an additional fee at the rate of rupees one lakh per acre of land for the purpose of rejuvenation of lakes or water bodies within the planning area was levied in the file No.NaPraVi/RuRe/2013-14/127 and not as per Section 18-A(1)(v) of the Amendment Act, 2011. 6. In that, it is stated as per Section 18(1A) an additional fee at the rate of rupees one lakh per acre of land for the purpose of rejuvenation of lakes or water bodies within the planning area was levied in the file No.NaPraVi/RuRe/2013-14/127 and not as per Section 18-A(1)(v) of the Amendment Act, 2011. 6. The Amendment Act, 2015 omits clause (v) of Section 18-A(1) of the Principal Act. Clause (v) of the Principal Act read as follows: “(v) a cess for the rejuvenation of lakes or water bodies.” 7. Therefore, omission of clause (v) of Section 18-A(1) of the Act, 1961 would not have the effect of wiping out the steps taken under Amendment Act, 2011 prior to the enforcement of Amendment Act, 2015. Be that as it may, the notice/order dated 30.08.2013 is stated to be passed under Section 18(1A) of the Act, 1961. 8. We have perused the copy of the affidavit/statement of objections filed by respondent No.2 in W.P.No.103478/2013. In that statement of objections, though in paragraph No.4 thereof, Section 18-A of the Act, 1961 was alluded to, however, what was quoted and relied upon therein was the provision of Section 18(1A) as it stood prior to its amendment in the year 2015. 9. In that light, the impugned judgment of the learned single Judge passed in W.P.No.103478/2013 on 29.01.2015 is required to be seen. We find from perusal of the judgment impugned that the same is based on another judgment of this Court and relying upon the provisions of Article 243(x) of the Constitution of India and a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of MUNICIPAL BOARD, HAPUR ETC VS. JASSA SINGH AND OTHERS , (1996) 10 SCC 377 wherein, it was held that competency of the State Legislature regarding the subject is found in Entry 66 of List-II in the Seventh schedule to the Constitution. Another judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of THE COMMISSIONER, HINDU RELIGIOUS ENDOWMENTS, MADRAS VS. JASSA SINGH AND OTHERS , (1996) 10 SCC 377 wherein, it was held that competency of the State Legislature regarding the subject is found in Entry 66 of List-II in the Seventh schedule to the Constitution. Another judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of THE COMMISSIONER, HINDU RELIGIOUS ENDOWMENTS, MADRAS VS. LAKSHMEENDRA THIRTHA SWAMIYAR OF SHRI SHIRUR MUTT , 1954 SCR 1005 was considered and it was held that in view of the object of the enactment, if the developers and builders are demanded to pay a fee for rejuvenation of lakes and the collection of the said fee is after the decision of an expert body and before doing that the State Legislature has brought amendment to the Act, it is to be held that the authorities have competency to do so. Nothing has been placed before the Court that could entail upsetting the judgment of the learned single Judge which is impugned in this appeal. 10. Since the order of 30.08.2013 that was challenged in the Writ Petition was sought to be challenged only on the ground of the validity of the offending amendment which was clause (v) of Section 18A of the Act, 1961, we see no reason to interfere in the aforesaid impugned judgment or in the aforesaid order of 30.08.2013. For the reasons aforesaid, this appeal lacks merit and is therefore dismissed.