Brief facts of the case which led to filing of this appeal are that the provisions of Karnataka Town and Country Planning KTCP Act, 1961 to provide for regulation of planned growth of land use and development and for making and execution of town planning schemes in the State of Karnataka.
Respondent No.1 was allotted lands by KIADB in Thippapura, Veerapura, Bashettinalli of Doddaballapur Taluk vide allotment letter dated 12/13.01.1998.
The Appellant also informed Respondent No.1 to pay betterment charges Rs.
It was stated in the numberice that records reveal that numberpermission has been obtained as required under the provisions of KTCP Act.
The State Government by Notification dated 14.05.1997 added some other villages including the villages in question in Doddaballapur Taluk in the planning area of the appellant.
Respondent No.1 objected to the demand by a letter dated 16.10.1998 stating that it had already made payment to KIADB towards allotment of lands, and therefore, development fee for companystructing the companymercial establishment is number necessary.
12.01.1996.
By exercising powers under Sections 3 1 and 1 3 of KIAD Act, the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board KIADB , issued a Notification on 03.07.1997 declaring some areas as industrial areas.
Subsequently, respondent No.1 was asked to take possession of the said lands vide letter dated 29.05.1998 by KIADB and accordingly, possession certificate was issued on 16.07.1998 and respondent No.1 took possession on 16.7.1998.
Appellant issued numberice dated 08.12.1998 under section 15 4 of KTCP Act stating that as per Section 15 1 of the KTCP Act, every development has to be proceeded only after getting necessary Commencement Certificate from the Appellant.
On 8.6.1998, Respondent No.1 applied to Appellant authority seeking permission for companystruction of Bulk Cement Terminal.
The Appellant inspected the spot along with KIADB Special Land Acquisition Officer, Urban Planning Director and Deputy Metropolitan Commissioner.
The State Government, by virtue of powers companyferred under Section 4 A of the KTCP Act, issued Notification No.
75 per sq.
37717 719/1998 dated 14.12.1998 before the High Court challenging the said numberice dated 17.9.1998 and numberice dated 8.12.1998.
By letter dated 17.9.1998, R 1 was informed by the Appellant that on inspecting the land once again and being satisfied that there is an approach road measuring 15 feet to the proposed land, it was decided to approve the development plan as per Rules.
HUD142 MNX 95 dated 12.01.1996 declaring the area shown in the Schedule to the said numberification as Bangalore International Airport Planning Area w.e.f.
150 per hectare and road charges Rs.
Respondents No.
Respondent No.1 approached the State Government to approve a project to establish the Cement Terminal near Bangalore which was approved by the Single Window Agency by its clearance order dated 29.11.1996.
1 lakh per acre totalling Rs.1,48,29,173/ pertaining to the sanctioning of the Development Plan companysisting of the plans of storage, packing and administrative office buildings.
Respondent No.1 companytended that the appellant has numberauthority to demand any development charges since the lands in the question were allotted in favour of Respondent No.1 by the KIADB, under the provisions of Karnataka Industrial Areas Development KIAD Act.
KTCP asked respondent No.
1 itself has submitted to the jurisdiction of the appellant by making an application for sanction of plan and for permission and while so, it is number open for them to say that the appellant has numberjurisdiction or authority to demand development charges.
inspection charges Rs.
HUD 142 MSX 95 companystituting the appellant as the Planning Authority for the said local planning area.
150 per hectare, building companystruction charges, penalty Rs.
1 to stop work and discontinue use of the property and to show cause as to why action should number be taken to remove or pull down the work and to restore the land to its original companydition.
1 and 2 filed Writ Petitions No.
On the same day, the State Government issued another Notification No.
BANUMATHI, J. This appeal arises out of the judgment dated 21.10.2005 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Writ Appeal No.3688 of 2002 in and by which the High Court has set aside the order passed by the Single Judge thereby setting aside the betterment fee levied by the KTCP by holding that the very acquisition under the Industrial Area Development Act involve change of land use and development by KIADB and while so, Signature Not Verified further levy of betterment fee under Section 18 of the KTCP is number Digitally signed by MAHABIR SINGH Date 2018.11.27 165716 IST Reason sustainable.
