High CourtsSingle Bench(2012) 08 KAR CK 0015

Mr Avinash Prashu vs The Urban Development Department, The Joint Commissioner Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike N.R. Circle Sub-Division, Bangalore and The Assistant Revenue Officer Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

Karnataka High Court · Decided on 1 August 2012

HON’BLE JUDGES
Ram Mohan Reddy, J
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition No. 13247 of 2012 (LB-BMP)

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

5 paragraphs · 266 words

Ram Mohan Reddy

1.

Petitioner''s online application, for sanction of building plan was responded to by the respondent-BBMP also online, by endorsement dt. 2.12.2011 Annexure-B indicating several deficiencies, one of which is the failure to upload the document relating to payment of improvement charges. Hence this petition to quash Annexure-B and the Karnataka Municipal Corporation (Recovery of improvement Expenses) Rules, 2009 Annexure-E and the Circular dt. 7.2.2011 Annexure-F prescribing the rate of improvement expenses. As regards the vires of the Rules and the challenge to the challenge to the rate of improvement expenses are no more res integra in the light of the Order dt. 20.4.2012 in W.P.18014/2011 and batch while upholding the validity of the Rules quash Rule 5 as being violative of Section 467 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 with a direction to the Corporation to re-do the rate of improvement expenses without insisting upon payment of improvement expenses as a condition precedent for issue of katha.

2.

In that view of the matter, there is no necessity to quash notification Annexure-E, Circular Annexure-F.

3.

In the light of the aforesaid order, it is for the petitioner to upload, online, the other requirements as sought for in the endorsement Annexure-B as compliance for consideration of the application for sanction of plan and also point out that the rate of improvement expenses since ordered to be re-done, a receipt in that regard is not furnished and if inspite of that the respondent-authorities fail to sanction the building plan, petitioner is at liberty Lo move the court for appropriate orders.

Petition is ordered accordingly.