M/S. Maratt Limited vs Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 7457 Kant

                           1


IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF MAY, 2022

                       BEFORE

        THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

     WRIT PETITION NO.16207 OF 2013 (LB-BMP)


BETWEEN:

M/S. MARATT LIMITED
PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS
MARATT RUBBER LIMITED,
A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER
THE COMPANIES ACT OF 1956,
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT
"MARATT ESTATE"
BANNERGHATTA ROAD, JP NAGAR,
BANGALORE-560 076.
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
MR. M.K.MARATTUKALAM.
                                  ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. K.B.S.MANIAN, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.     BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE
       N.R.SQUARE,
       BANGALORE-560 002.
       REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER

2.     CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
       BOMMANAHALLI,
       BANGALORE-560068
       REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER

3.     STATE OF KARNATAKA
       DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING
       AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT,
                                   2


      M.S.BUILDING,
      BANGALORE-560001
      REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER.


                                               ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. K.N.PUTTEGOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT
NO.1 (THROUGH VC);
SRI. V.S.KALASURMATH, HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER
FOR RESPONDENT NO.3;
NOTICE SERVED ON RESPONDENT NO.2)

      THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE 1ST
RESPONDENT TO PAY THE PETITIONER A SUM OF
RS.17,66,205/- TOWARDS INTEREST FOR THE PERIOD FROM
25.04.2003 TO 20.08.2011 PURSUANT TO THE ORDER DATED
25.06.2009 IN W.P.NO.42015/2013.


     THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY,
THE COURT PASSED THE FOLLOWING:


                            ORDER

The petitioner being the owner of the land bearing

Sy. No.174:1 (B) of Bilekanahalli village, Begur hobli,

Bengaluru South Taluk, sought conversion of the land from

industrial to residential use. This was followed by

imposition and collection of betterment tax by the

Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) which indicated

its no-objection for conversion of the land.

2. In the meanwhile, respondent No.2 issued a

notice demanding betterment charges of a sum of

Rs.17,66,205/- and khata transfer fee of Rs.6,795/-. Since

the petitioner had already paid the betterment charges, it

paid the amount demanded under protest and thereafter,

challenged the demand in W.P. No.42015/2003, which was

allowed in terms of the Order dated 25.06.2009 following

an earlier Order dated 23.06.2009 passed by this Court in

W.P.Nos.4217/2009 and 9932-41/2009 and the

respondent No.1 herein, who was the successor authority

of respondent No.2 herein, was directed to refund a sum of

Rs.17,72,900/- along with interest at the rate of 12% per

annum. Against the Order of the learned Single Judge

dated 23.06.2009 passed in W.P. Nos.4217/2009 and

9932-41/2009, writ appeals in W.A. No.3677/2009 and

W.A. Nos.4006-4015/2009 were preferred by the

respondent No.1 herein and two others. A Division Bench

of this Court disposed off the said writ appeals in terms of

the Judgment dated 07.12.2010 directing the appellants

therein to refund the deposit made by the respondents

therein within three months from the date of the

Judgment. The respondents paid a sum of Rs.17,66,205/-

on 20.08.2011, but failed to pay interest as directed by

this Court. Following this, the petitioner filed a contempt

petition in C.C.C (Civil) No.165/2012, which was dismissed

in terms of the Order dated 21.06.2012 passed by a

Division Bench of this Court and liberty was reserved to

the petitioner herein to work out its rights and remedies

elsewhere in accordance with law. Hence, the petitioner

has filed this writ petition for a direction to the respondent

No.1 to pay interest on Rs.17,66,205/- for the period

25.04.2003 to 20.08.2011.

3. When the writ petition was listed for final

hearing, the learned counsel for the respondent No.1 filed

a memo stating that the interest payable to the petitioner

is deducted from out of the improvement charges payable

by the petitioner to the respondent No.1 and that after

such deduction, a sum of Rs.65,39,750/- is payable by the

petitioner. Along with the memo, a notice dated

11.10.2018 issued by the Assistant Revenue Officer of the

respondent No.1 and a corrigendum dated 11.10.2018

addressed to the petitioner are enclosed.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits

that if the respondent No.1 has already deducted interest

from out of the improvement charges payable by the

petitioner, he may not pursue this writ petition. However,

he submitted that liberty may be reserved to the petitioner

to challenge the correctness of the calculation made by the

respondent No.1 before the appropriate authority.

5. In view of the aforesaid submission, this Writ

Petition is disposed off holding that the respondent No.1

has adjusted the amount payable by the respondent No.1

to the petitioner towards interest as directed by this Court

in W.P. No.42015/2003 from out of the improvement

charges payable by the petitioner to the respondent No.1.

It is, however, open for the petitioner to challenge the

correctness of the calculation made by the respondent

No.1 while demanding the improvement charges from the

petitioner. All contentions of the parties are left open.

6. The learned High Court Government Pleader is

permitted to file memo of appearance within two weeks

from today.

Sd/-

JUDGE

sma