Karnataka High Court
Sri Mahaveer vs The State Of Karnataka on 26 November, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:49020-DB
WA No. 435 of 2016
C/W WA No. 1691 of 2014
WA No. 1693 of 2014
HC-KAR AND 7 OTHERS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
WRIT APPEAL NO. 435 OF 2016 (LB-RES)
C/W
WRIT APPEAL NO. 1691 OF 2014 (LB-RES)
WRIT APPEAL NO. 1693 OF 2014 (LB-RES)
WRIT APPEAL NO. 437 OF 2016 (LB-RES)
WRIT APPEAL NO. 439 OF 2016 (LB-RES)
WRIT APPEAL NO. 440 OF 2016 (LB-RES)
WRIT APPEAL NO. 443 OF 2016 (LB-RES)
WRIT APPEAL NO. 449 OF 2016 (LB-RES)
WRIT APPEAL NO. 452 OF 2016 (LB-RES)
Digitally signed WRIT APPEAL NO. 455 OF 2016 (LB-RES)
by K G
RENUKAMBA
Location: HIGH IN WA No. 435/2016
COURT OF
KARNATAKA BETWEEN:
DR.LAXMAN,
S/O HANAMANTHAPPA BIDARI,
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
OCC:DOCTOR,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:49020-DB
WA No. 435 of 2016
C/W WA No. 1691 of 2014
WA No. 1693 of 2014
HC-KAR AND 7 OTHERS
R/O BLDE ROAD,
VIJAYAPUR-586 101.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI.AJAY KUMAR.A.K. ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY ITS SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT,
M.S.BUILDING,
BANGALORE-560 001.
2. THE COMMISSIONER,
VIJAYAPUR URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
VIJAYPUR-586 101.
3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
VIJAYPUR-586 101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.Y.H.VIJAYAKUMAR, AAG ALONG WITH
SRI.K.S.RAHUL CARIAPPA, AGA FOR R1 AND R3,
SRI.S.S.HALALLI, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER U/S. 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, BY THE ADVOCATE FOR
APPELLANT PRAYING THAT THIS HON'BLE COURT TO, ALLOW
THE WRIT APPEAL AND SET-ASIDE THE ORDER DATED
29.01.2015, IN W.P.NO.103478/2013 (LB-RES), AND
CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW WRIT PETITION, IN THE INTERST OF
JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:49020-DB
WA No. 435 of 2016
C/W WA No. 1691 of 2014
WA No. 1693 of 2014
HC-KAR AND 7 OTHERS
IN WA NO. 1691/2014
BETWEEN:
M/S. EXPERT REALTORS PVT LTD,
PRIDE ELITE,
G2,NO.10, MUSEUM ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 001,
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR
SRI.B.R.RAVINDRA.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI.H.SRINIVAS RAO. ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT,
VIKASA SOUDHA,
BANGALORE-560 001.
2. BANGALORE METROPOLITAN
REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
ALI ASKAR ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 001,
REPRESENTED BY ITS
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.
3. ANEKAL PLANNING AUTHORITY
ANEKAL,BANGALORE RURAL
DISTRICT-560 099,
REPRESENTED BY ITS
MEMBER SECRETARY.
...RESPONDENTS
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:49020-DB
WA No. 435 of 2016
C/W WA No. 1691 of 2014
WA No. 1693 of 2014
HC-KAR AND 7 OTHERS
(BY SRI.Y.H.VIJAYAKUMAR, AAG ALONG WITH
SRI.K.S.RAHUL CARIAPPA, AGA FOR R1,
SRI.YOGISH.D. NAIK, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE
THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION 37442-
43/2012 (LB-RES), DATED 09/06/2014.
IN WA NO. 1693/2014
BETWEEN:
M/S. EXPERT INVESTMENTS,
NO.174, BYRASANDRA MAIN ROAD,
JAYANAGAR EAST, 1ST BLOCK,
BANGALORE-560 011,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER,
MR. B.R.RAVINDRA.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI.H.SRINIVAS RAO, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT,
VIKASA SOUDHA,
AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BANGALORE-560 001.
2. BANGALORE METROPOLITAN
REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
ALI ASKAR ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 001,
REPRESENTED BY TIS
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC:49020-DB
WA No. 435 of 2016
C/W WA No. 1691 of 2014
WA No. 1693 of 2014
HC-KAR AND 7 OTHERS
3. ANEKAL PLANNING AUTHORITY
ANEKAL, BANGALORE RURAL
DISTRICT-560 099,
REPRESENTED BY ITS
MEMBER SECRETARY.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.Y.H.VIJAYAKUMAR, AAG ALONG WITH
SRI.K.S.RAHUL CARIAPPA, AGA FOR R1,
SRI.YOGISH D. NAIK ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE
THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO.13182-
187/2012 (LB-RES) DATED 09/06/2014.
IN WA NO. 437/2016
BETWEEN:
1. RACHANAGOUDA (RACHAPPA),
S/O SHIVANAGOUDA PATIL,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
OCC: AGRL.
2. SRI.SIDDARAM,
S/O SHIVAPUTRA BIRADAR,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
OCC:AGRL.
REP BY THEIR GPA HOLDER,
SRI MAHAVEERCHAND,
S/O GHEVARACHAND PAREKH,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
OCC:AGRL. & BUSINESS,
-6-
NC: 2025:KHC:49020-DB
WA No. 435 of 2016
C/W WA No. 1691 of 2014
WA No. 1693 of 2014
HC-KAR AND 7 OTHERS
R/O B.L.D.E. ROAD,
VIJAYAPURA.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI.SHIVAYOGESHA SHIVAYOGIMATH,
ADVOCATE FOR SMT.RATNA N
SHIVAYOGIMATH. ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY ITS SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT,
M.S.BUILDING,
BANGALORE-1.
2. THE COMMISSIONER,
VIJAYAPURA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
DIST:VIJAYAPURA-586 101.
3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
VIJAYAPURA,
DIST:VIJAYAPURA-586 101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.Y.H.VIJAYAKUMAR, AAG ALONG WITH
SRI.K.S.RAHUL CARIYAPPA, AGA FOR R1 AND R3,
SRI.S.S.HALALLI, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S. 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, BY THE ADVOCATE FOR
APPELLANT PRAYING THAT THIS HON'BLE COURT TO, SET
ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 29.1.2015 PASSED BY THE
LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN W.P.NO.201737/2014 (LB-
RES) AND W.P.NO.201759/2014 AND ALLOW THE WRIT
PETITION FILED BY THE APPELLANT AS PRAYED FOR.
-7-
NC: 2025:KHC:49020-DB
WA No. 435 of 2016
C/W WA No. 1691 of 2014
WA No. 1693 of 2014
HC-KAR AND 7 OTHERS
IN WA NO. 439/2016
BETWEEN:
SMT.BHAGUDEVI,
W/O MANIKCHAND PAREKH,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
OCC: HH WORK & AGRL.,
R/O BLDE ROAD, VIJAYAPURA.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI.SHIVAYOGESHA SHIVAYOGIMATH, ADVOCATE
FOR SMT.RATNA N SHIVAYOGIMATH. ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY ITS SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT,
M S BUILDING, BENGALURU-1.
2. THE COMMISSIONER,
VIJAYAPURA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
DIST:VIJAYAPURA-586 101.
3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ,
VIJAYAPURA, DIST:VEIJAYAPURA-586 101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.Y.H.VIJAYA KUMAR, AAG ALONG WITH
SRI.K.S.RAHUL CARIAPPA, AGA FOR R1 AND R3,
SRI.S.S.HALALLI, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S.4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT, BY THE ADVOCATE FOR APPELLANT
PRAYING THAT THIS HON'BLE COURT TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER DATED 29.01.2015 PASSED BY THE SINGLE JUDGE
-8-
NC: 2025:KHC:49020-DB
WA No. 435 of 2016
C/W WA No. 1691 of 2014
WA No. 1693 of 2014
HC-KAR AND 7 OTHERS
IN W.P.NO.201735/2014 (LB-RES) AND ALLOW THE WRIT
PETITION FILED BY THE APPELLANT AS PRAYED FOR.
IN WA NO. 440/2016
BETWEEN:
1. SRI.VINIT,
S/O KEVALCHAND RUNAWAL,
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,
R/O C/O SIDDHARTH REALITY (INDIA) PVT. LTD,
LINGAD ROAD, VIJAYAPURA.
2. SRI .VIRUPAXAPPA,
S/O SHANKARAPPA HANAMASHETTY,
AGEDA BOUT 39 YEARS,
OCC:AGRIL, C/O. R/O SIDDHARTH
REALITY (INDIA) PVT. LTD,
LINGAD ROAD, VIJAYAPURA.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. SHIVAYOGESHA SHIVAYOGIMATH, ADVOCATE
FOR SMT.RATNA N SHIVAYOGIMATH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY ITS SECRETARY,
DEAPRTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT
M S BUILDING, BANGALORE-1.
2. THE COMMISSIONER,
VIJAYAPURA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
DIST:VIJAYAPURA-586 101.
3. THE DEPUTY COMISSIONER,
-9-
NC: 2025:KHC:49020-DB
WA No. 435 of 2016
C/W WA No. 1691 of 2014
WA No. 1693 of 2014
HC-KAR AND 7 OTHERS
VIJAYAPURA,
DIST:VIJAYAPURA-586 101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.Y.H.VIJAYAKUMAR, AAG ALONG WITH
SRI.K.S.RAHUL CARIAPPA, AGA FOR R1 AND R3,
SRI.S.S.HALALLI, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S. 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, BY THE ADVOCATE FOR
APPELLANT PRAYING THAT THIS HON'BLE COURT TO, SET
ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 21.01.2015 PASSED BY THE
SINGLE JUDGE IN W.P.NO.101985 & 102066-67/2013 (LB-
RES) AND ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION FILED BY THE
APPELLANTS AS PRAYED FOR.
IN WA NO. 443/2016
BETWEEN:
1. SRI.SHIVANAND,
S/O SIDRAMMAPPA KADE
ANGADI @ BIJJARAGI,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
OCC:AGRL.
2. SRI.MUREGENDRAPPA,
S/O DANAPPA ARJUNAGI,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
OCC:AGRL.
3. SRI.SHIVAYYA,
S/O TRIMUKHAYYA MATAPATI,
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,
OCC:AGRL.
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:49020-DB
WA No. 435 of 2016
C/W WA No. 1691 of 2014
WA No. 1693 of 2014
HC-KAR AND 7 OTHERS
4. SRI.NAGAPPA,
S/O CHANNAMALLAPPA CHINCHALI,
AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS,
OCC:AGRL.
5. SRI.KAGONDAPPA,
S/O MALAGONDAPPA PATIL,
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,
OCC:AGRL.
6. SRI.SANTOSH
S/O BASALINGAPPA KIRASUR,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
OCC:AGRL.
ALL ARE R/O VIJAYAPURA,
REP. BY GPA HOLDER,
SRI.VAGATAVARMAL,
S/O GHEVARACHAND PAREKH,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
OCC:AGRL. AND BUSINESS,
R/O B.L.D.E. ROAD, VIJAYAPURA.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. SHIVAYOGESHA SHIVAYOGIMATH, ADVOCATE
FOR SMT.RATNA N SHIVAYOGIMATH. ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY ITS SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT,
M.S.BUILDING, BANGALORE-1.
2. THE COMMISSIONER
VIJAYAPURA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:49020-DB
WA No. 435 of 2016
C/W WA No. 1691 of 2014
WA No. 1693 of 2014
HC-KAR AND 7 OTHERS
DIST:VIJAYAPURA-586 101.
3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
VIJAYAPURA,
DIST:VIJAYAPURA-586 101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.Y.H.VIJAYAKUMAR, AAG ALONG WITH
SRI.K.S.RAHUL CARIAPPA, AGA FOR R1 AND R3,
SRI.S.S.HALALLI, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S. 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, BY THE ADVOCATE FOR
APPELLANT PRAYING THAT THIS HON'BLE COURT TO, SET
ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 29.01.2015 PASSED BY THE
LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN W.P.NO.201736/2014 (LB-
RES) & W.P.NO.201758/2014 & W.P.NO.201800-803/2014
AND ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION FILED BY THE
APPELLANTS AS PRAYED FOR.
IN WA NO. 449/2016
BETWEEN:
SRI.MAHAVEER,
S/O SHANKARLAL MEHTA,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
OCC:AGRL.
R/O RAJGURU ASHISH COMPLEX,
MAHAVEER ROAD, VIJAYAPURA.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SHIVAYOGESHA SHIVAYOGIMATH, ADVOCATE
FOR SMT.RATNA N SHIVAYOGIMATH. ADVOCATE)
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:49020-DB
WA No. 435 of 2016
C/W WA No. 1691 of 2014
WA No. 1693 of 2014
HC-KAR AND 7 OTHERS
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY ITS SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT,
M.S.BUILDING, BANGALORE-1.
2. THE COMMISSIONER
VIJAYAPURA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
DIST:VIJAYAPURA-586 101.
3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
VIJAYAPURA,
DIST:VIJAYAPURA-586 101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.Y.H.VIJAYAKUMAR, AAG ALONG WITH
SRI.K.S.RAHUL CARIYAPPA, AGA FOR R1 AND R3,
SRI.S.S.HALALLI, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S. 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER
DATED 21.01.2015 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE
JUDGE IN W.P.NO.103407/2013 AND W.P.NO.103425-
26/2013 (LB-RES) AND ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION FILED
BY THE APPELLANT AS PRAYED FOR.
IN WA NO. 452/2016
BETWEEN:
SRI.GURUPADAPPA,
S/O SHIVAGONDAPPA NAGANOOR,
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:49020-DB
WA No. 435 of 2016
C/W WA No. 1691 of 2014
WA No. 1693 of 2014
HC-KAR AND 7 OTHERS
R/O LINGAD ROAD,
VIJAYAPURA.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI.SHIVAYOGESHA SHIVAYOGIMATH, ADVOCATE
FOR SMT. RATNA N SHIVAYOGIMATH. ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY ITS SECRETARY,
DEAPRTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT,
M.S.BUILDING, BANGALORE-1.
2. THE COMMISSIONER,
VIJAYAPURA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
DIST:VIJAYAPURA-586 101.
3. THE DEPUTY COMISSIONER,
VIJAYAPURA,
DIST:VIJAYAPURA-586 101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.Y.H.VIJAYAKUMAR, AAG ALONG WITH
SRI.K.S.RAHUL CARIYAPPA, AGA FOR R1 AND R3,
SRI.S.S.HALALLI, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S. 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT, BY THE ADVOCATE FOR APPELLANT
PRAYING THAT THIS HON'BLE COURT TO, SET ASIDE THE
ORDER DATED 21.01.2015 PASSED BY THE SINGLE JUDGE
IN W.P.NO.10198/2013 AND W.P.NO.101988-999 (LB-RES)
AND ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION FILED BY THE
APPELLANTS AS PRAYED FOR.
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:49020-DB
WA No. 435 of 2016
C/W WA No. 1691 of 2014
WA No. 1693 of 2014
HC-KAR AND 7 OTHERS
IN WA NO. 455/2016
BETWEEN:
SRI.VIJAY KUMAR,
S/O GIRIDHARLAL MEHTA,
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
OCC:AGRL,
R/O RAJGURU ASHISH COMPLEX,
MAHAVEER ROAD, VIJAYAPURA
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI.SHIVAYOGESHA SHIVAYOGIMATH, ADVOCATE
FOR SMT.RATNA N SHIVAYOGIMATH. ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY ITS SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT,
M.S.BUILDING, BANGALORE-1.
2. THE COMMISSIONER,
VIJAYAPURA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
DIST: VIJAYAPURA-586 101.
3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
BIJAPUR, DIST: VIJAYAPURA-586 101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.Y.H.VIJAYAKUMAR, AAG ALONG WITH
SRI.K.S.RAHUL CARIAPPA, AGA FOR R1 AND R3,
SRI.S.S.HALALLI, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER
DATED 21.01.2015 PASED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:49020-DB
WA No. 435 of 2016
C/W WA No. 1691 of 2014
WA No. 1693 of 2014
HC-KAR AND 7 OTHERS
IN W.P.NO.103406/2013 AND W.P.NO.103424/2013 (LB-
RES) AND ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION FILED BY THE
APPELLANT AS PRAYED FOR.
THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
ORAL 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, 20111. 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
Amendment Act, 2011
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC:49020-DB
HC-KAR AND 7 OTHERS
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, 20152 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, 19613 by the Amendment Act, 2011
by insertion of clause (v) in Sub-Section (1) of Section 18-
Amendment Act, 2015
Act, 1961
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC:49020-DB
HC-KAR AND 7 OTHERS
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
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC:49020-DB
HC-KAR AND 7 OTHERS
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,
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC:49020-DB
HC-KAR AND 7 OTHERS
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 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 was considered
(1996) 10 SCC 377
1954 SCR 1005
- 20 -
NC: 2025:KHC:49020-DB
HC-KAR AND 7 OTHERS
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.
- 21 -
NC: 2025:KHC:49020-DB
HC-KAR AND 7 OTHERS
For the reasons aforesaid, this appeal lacks merit and
is therefore dismissed.
Sd/-
(JAYANT BANERJI)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(K. V. ARAVIND)
JUDGE
BVK
