Point of Law: In terms of Rule 37-A if an application is made for development of land or building, necessary fees are required to be paid by such an applicant.

ORDER :

1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:

(a) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate Writ or Order and quash the Government opinion bearing No. HUD 90 TTP 91 dated 1.7.1999 in Annexure-A, Annexure-B No. NAE 176 BMR 2006 Bangalore dated 17.9.2007 and Annexure-C No. NAE 264 BMR 2007 Bangalore dated 15-4-2008 as illegal and arbitrary exercise of administration powers and beyond the provisions of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act.

(b) Issue a Writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ or Order and quash the demand by 3rd Respondent bearing No. Ayo PRA/LAO/63/2010-2011 dated 15.2.2011 vide Annexure-K, in so far as the demand of the betterment charges is concerned prima-facie amounts to double taxation.

(c) To declare that, Section 2(1-b) of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act 1961 in so far as treating education as commercial for the purpose of recovery of charges, cess, including change of land use and construction of buildings for educational purpose is violative of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India as the same being the arbitrary and unreasonable classification.

(d) Issue such other writ order as this Hon’ble Court deem fit to grant in the facts and circumstances.

2. The petitioner claims to be a Charitable Trust providing education to students at affordable cost without discrimination of caste or religion. The petitioner set up an Academy to award Diploma in Nautical Sciences. For the purpose of construction of the same, the petitioner had purchased 7 acres 9 guntas of land at Guddanahalli, Anekal taluk carved from out of Sy.No. 62 and 63 which had been converted for non-agricultural educational purpose on 28.4.2010 and 12.3.2010 respectively.

3. When the petitioner applied to the 3rd respondent for grant of plan sanction on 20.12.2010, 3rd Respondent vide its letter dated 15.02.2011 called upon the petitioner to make payment of Rs. 22,00,000/- towards development charges, supervisory charges to consider the development plan. Apart therefrom ‘Lake Rejuvenation charges’ was also called upon to be paid which was challenged by the petitioner in W.P. No. 25224-25227/2011, which petition came to be dismissed. Thereafter the petitioner vide letter dated 6.4.2010 had informed 3rd respondent that establishment of the educational institution was for carrying out charitable education activities and was not to make any profits and therefore, could not be called upon to make payments of the demands made vide demand letter dated 15.2.2011. The same not being accepted and the development plan not having been sanctioned, the petitioner is before this Court seeking for the aforesaid reliefs.

4. Sri. Vardhaman V. Gunjal, learned counsel would submit that the levy of fee is sought to be made under Rule 37-A of Karnataka Planning Authorities Rules, 1965 which would be only applicable if there is change of land use granted by the Planning authority and thereafter development of land and building is permitted. His submission is that since there is no change of land user which has been granted in the present matter, only for the purpose of sanction of building, fee cannot be levied under Rule 37-A of the Rules.

5. He further submits that conversion of land having been granted after obtaining the opinion of the Town Planning Authority, the Town Planning Authority having acceded to and recommended the conversion, there is no need of change of land use, more so when the zoning regulation permit the use of land which is classified as agricultural zone under the Zonal classification for an education institution, if an application is made to the Planning Authority. On these grounds, he submits that the claim which has been made by 3rd respondent is required to be quashed.

6. Sri. Yogesh D. Naik, learned counsel for 3rd respondent would however submit that, the application having been made in the year 2010, the property being located in a city with a