J. ESWARA PRASAD, J.

( 1 ) OF the Munsiff, Shimoga for declaration, that the respondent Municipality has no right to demand development, betterment or layout charges from the appellant in respect of the suit schedule property and for a permanent injunction. The suit was contested inter alia on the ground that the layout charges were due from the appellant and that the suit is barred under Section 150 (4) of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 ('the Act' for short ). The trial Court held that the suit is barred under Section 150 (4) of the Act and dismissed suit. On appeal by the plaintiff, in regular Appeal No. 6 of 1988, the additional Civil Judge, shimoga concurred with the findings of the Trial Court and dismissed the appeal.

( 2 ) THE learned Counsel for the appellant contended that Section 150 (4) of the Act is not a bar and the Civil Court has the jurisdiction and the suit is maintainable, in view of the findings that the provisions of law were not complied with. He further contends that the recovery sought to be made from the appellant under Exhibit P-6-notice was not for the recovery of betterment charges as mentioned therein, but was for the recovery of layout charges as

Click Here to Read the rest of this document