- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26892 WP No. 4319 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 4319 OF 2026 (BDA) BETWEEN: MR. D. RAJAN S/O LATE DANIEL AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS R/AT NO.115, KALATHUR LAYOUT GANGAMMA CIRCLE, JALAHALLI BANGALORE 560013 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. KIRAN R., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER OFFICE AT T.CHOWDAIAH ROAD KUMARA PARK WEST BENGALURU-560020. 2. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER (BETTERMENT TAX) BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OFFICE AT T.CHOWDAIAH ROAD KUMARA PARK WEST BENGALURU-560020. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. GOWTHAMDEV C ULLAL, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE BETTERMENT TAX DEMAND NOTICE NO. ULD2403AA338XXA02198 DATED 16.09.2025 ISSUED BY THE R2 TO THE PETITIONER AT ANNEXURE-A AND ETC. Digitally signed by HEMALATHA J Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26892 WP No. 4319 of 2026 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ ORAL ORDER The petitioner has challenged a demand notice bearing No.ULD2403AA338XXA02198 dated 16.09.2025 issued by respondent No.2. He has also challenged a resolution dated 07.03.2024 passed by respondent No.1 on Subject No.67/24. He has also sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the respondents to provide an opportunity to file objections and hear him before levying any betterment charges relating to site bearing No.JCC-02-01973, R.C.No.591 measuring 11,757.75 sq. ft. in Sy.No.11, Lakshmipura village in Dr. K. Shivarama Karanth Layout, Bengaluru North Taluk. 2. The petitioner contends that he had purchased 12 guntas of land in Sy.No.11, Lakshmipura village, Yeshwanthpura Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk, in terms of a sale deed dated 17.11.2005. He contends that respondent No.1 had initiated acquisition proceedings for formation of Dr. Shivaram Karanth Layout. The petitioner appeared before a Committee headed by the Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.V. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26892 WP No. 4319 of 2026 Chandrashekar ((retired), who passed an order regularizing the construction as well as occupation of the petitioner. He contends that respondent No.2 issued a demand notice dated 16.09.2025 demanding betterment charges of Rs.54,67,353.75. The petitioner contends that the demand was made without complying the procedure prescribed under Sections 20 and 21 of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 (henceforth referred to as 'BDA Act, 1976') and is therefore, before this Court challenging the said demand. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that under Section 21 of the BDA Act, 1976, before issuing any demand, a prior show-cause notice has to be issued as stipulated under Section 17(5) of the BDA Act, 1976. However, the respondent short-circuiting the aforesaid process has raised a demand. He therefore, contends that the impugned demand is liable to be set at nought. He also contends that the respondent No.2 issued a demand without any authority or power as under Section 17(6) of the BDA Act, 1976, notice has to be issued by the Commissioner of respondent No.1 or from the order of the Commissioner. However, respondent No.2 has digitally signed and there is no mention that the same was - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26892 WP No. 4319 of 2026 issued under the order of the Commissioner. He also contends that the petitioner is entitled to object to the demand after a show-cause notice is issued and respondents without complying the above has raised a demand. He also contends that the betterment charges is determined at a sum of Rs.465 per sq. ft. whereas for neighbouring Vaderahalli village, it is determined at Rs.77/- per sq. ft. Thus, he contends that the betterment charges levied is discriminatory. 4. The learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand contended that the petitioner is bound to pay betterment charges and that the rate of betterment charges is fixed uniformly in respect of this village and therefore, there is no error in the respondents demanding betterment charges. 5. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the respondents. 6. The procedure for imposition of betterment charges is contemplated under Sections 20 and 21 of the BDA Act, 1976 which reads as follows:- - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26892 WP No. 4319 of 2026 "20. Levy of betterment tax.- (1) Where as a consequence of execution of any development scheme, the market value of any land in the area comprised in the scheme which is not required for the execution thereof has in the opinion of the authority, increased or will increase the authority shall be entitled to levy on the owner of the land or any person having an interest therein a betterment tax in respect of the increase in value of the land resulting from the execution of such scheme. (2) Such increase in value shall be the amount by which the value of the land, on the completion of the execution of the scheme, estimated as if the land were clear of buildings, exceeds the value of the land prior to the execution of the scheme estimated in like manner, and the betterment tax shall be one-third of such increase in value. 21. Assessment of betterment tax by the Authority.- (1) When it appears to the Authority that a development scheme is sufficiently advanced to enable the amount of the betterment tax to be determined, the authority shall, by a resolution passed in this behalf declare that for the purpose of determining such tax, the execution of the scheme shall be deemed to have been completed and shall thereupon give notice in writing to every person on whom a notice in respect of land to be assessed had - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26892 WP No. 4319 of 2026 been served under sub-section (5) of Section 17 or to the successor in interest of such person, as the case may be, that the authority proposes to assess the amount of the betterment tax payable in respect of such land under Section 20. (2) The authority shall then assess the amount of betterment tax payable by each person concerned after giving such person an opportunity of being heard and such person shall, within three months from the date of receipt of notice in writing of such assessment inform the authority in writing whether or not he accepts the assessment. (3) When the assessment proposed by the authority is accepted by the person concerned within the period specified in sub-section (2), such assessment shall be final. (4) If the person concerned does not accept the assessment made by the authority or fails to give the authority the information required under sub- section (2) within the period specified therein the authority shall make a reference to the District Court for determining the betterment tax payable by such person." 7. Under Section 21(1) of the BDA Act, 1976, a notice is bound to be issued to every person on whom a notice in - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26892 WP No. 4319 of 2026 respect of land to be acquired is served under Section 17(5) of the BDA Act, 1976. Thereafter, such person is entitled to object against the demand made. The authority namely, respondent No.1 shall thereafter assess the amount of betterment charges payable by each person after hearing the person concerned. If the betterment charges as assessed by the authority is accepted, then such assessment shall become final, else reference shall be made to the District Court for determining betterment charges payable. Therefore, it is evident that the respondents have not complied with the procedure prescribed under Section 21 of the BDA Act, 1976. Hence, the impugned demand warrants interference. 8. Accordingly, the following order is passed: ORDER (i) The petition is allowed. (ii) The impugned demand notice bearing No.ULD2403AA338XXA02198 dated 16.09.2025 issued by respondent No.2 is set aside. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26892 WP No. 4319 of 2026 (iii) The impugned demand notice bearing No.ULD2403AA338XXA02198 dated 16.09.2025 issued by respondent No.2 shall be treated as a notice under Section 21(1) of the BDA Act, 1976. (iv) The petitioner shall file his objection within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. (v) The respondent No.2 shall thereafter comply with the procedure prescribed under Section 21(2) of the BDA Act, 1976 and proceed in accordance with law. (vi) It is needless to mention that if the betterment charges as assessed by the respondent No.2 is not acceptable to the petitioner, the procedure under Section 21(4) of the BDA Act, 1976 shall be followed. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE PMR/ LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 5