- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28614 WP No. 14905 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 14905 OF 2017 (BDA) BETWEEN: 1. SRINIVASA EDUCATIONAL AND CHARITABLE TRUST HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.619/G, 36TH CROSS, RAJAJINAGAR 2ND BLOCK, BENGALURU-560010 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN MR. G.DAYANAND. 2. NATIONAL PUBLIC SCHOOL SY.NO.81, 3RD CROSS, 60 FEET ROAD, UTTARAHALLI KENGERI MAIN ROAD, BANASHANKARI 6TH STAGE, BENGALURU-560061, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL MS C.D. GRACE. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. NISHANTH A.V., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001. REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY. 2. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST, BENGALURU-560020 REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER. Digitally signed by HEMALATHA J Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28614 WP No. 14905 of 2017 3. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, T.CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST, BENGALURU-560020. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ADITYA DIWAKAR, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1; SRI. BASAVARAJ H.T., ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.2 AND 3) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE INTIMATION LETTER DATED 24.01.2017 BEARING NO.BEMAAPRA/VIBHUSWAAA/A5/PR-2895/16-17 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-F. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ ORAL ORDER The petitioners have sought for a writ in the nature of certiorari to set aside the letter bearing No.BemAaPra/ViBhuSwaAa/A5/PR-2895/16-17 dated 24.01.2017 addressed to the petitioner by respondent No.3 demanding betterment charges. 2. The petitioner No.1 contend that the State Government granted 11 acres 11 guntas of land in its favour - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28614 WP No. 14905 of 2017 for the purpose of establishing an educational institution. Respondent No.3, the Development Authority, raised a demand for payment of betterment charges on the premise that the land granted to the petitioners falls within Banashankari 6th stage. Aggrieved by the demand for payment of betterment charges, the petitioners have filed the present writ petition challenging the same. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that though respondent No.3 is entitled to levy and collect betterment charges, the procedure for making such a demand is prescribed under Sections 20 and 21 of the Bengaluru Development Authority Act, 1976 (henceforth referred to as 'BDA Act' for short). He submits that the respondents neither issued a prior show-cause notice nor afforded an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners before raising the impugned demand. He therefore, submitted that the demand is in clear violation of the procedure prescribed under the BDA Act and consequently prayed that the same be set at nought. He further submits that the petitioners had earlier filed I.A.No.1/2018 seeking sanction of a modified development plan, which was allowed by this - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28614 WP No. 14905 of 2017 Court vide order dated 19.09.2018 subject to the petitioners depositing a sum of Rs.1,51,02,524/- being 25% of the total betterment charges demanded. He therefore prayed that respondent No.3 be directed to refund the said amount in the event demand for betterment charges is set at nought. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 and 3 on the other hand submitted that the petitioner was notified before raising a demand and he was heard before issuing the impugned letter dated 24.01.2017 demanding betterment charges. He therefore, submits that the procedure prescribed is fully complied and no indulgence is warranted. 5. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 and 3. 6. The petitioner No.1 do not dispute the entitlement of the respondents to levy, demand and collect betterment charges. However, the petitioner No.1 contend that the respondents failed to comply with the procedure prescribed under Section 21 of BDA Act before demanding and collecting - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28614 WP No. 14905 of 2017 the betterment charges. A perusal of Section 21 of the BDA Act indicate that the respondents are required, in the first instance, to issue a notice to the petitioners, afford them an opportunity of hearing, and thereafter determine the betterment charges payable. If the amount so determined is accepted by the petitioners, such determination would become final. On the other hand, if the petitioners are aggrieved by the determination, they are entitled to challenge the same before the jurisdictional District Court. 7. A perusal of the statement of objections filed by the respondents shows that notices were issued to the petitioners prior to passing of the resolution dated 28.04.2011 determining the rates of betterment charges. However, the same did not satisfy the mandate of Section 21 of the BDA Act. What is contemplated under Section 21(2) of the BDA Act is the issuance of a show-cause notice to the person concerned before determining and demanding the betterment charges payable in respect of the property. 8. It is trite that where a statute prescribes that a particular act be done in a particular manner, it should be done - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28614 WP No. 14905 of 2017 in that manner alone or not at all. If only the respondents had caused a notice in terms of Section 21(2) of the BDA Act, the petitioners would have had an opportunity to raise all just contentions as are available to them in law against the proposed demand, whereupon the respondents could have considered the same and taken an appropriate decision in accordance with law. Since the respondents failed to follow the procedure prescribed under Section 21 of the BDA Act and proceeded to raise a demand directly against the petitioners, the impugned demand cannot be sustained. The procedure adopted by the respondents is contrary to and in violation of the mandate contained in Section 21 of the BDA Act. 9. Consequently, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned letter bearing No.BemAaPra/ViBhuSwaAa/A5/PR- 2895/16-17 dated 24.01.2017 addressed to the petitioner No.1 by respondent No.3 demanding betterment charges of Rs.6,04,10,097/- is quashed. The respondent No.3 shall now issue a show cause notice as prescribed under Section 21(2) of BDA Act, 1976 within two months and proceed to determine the objections filed after hearing the petitioners within two months - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28614 WP No. 14905 of 2017 thereafter. It is made clear that any amount paid by the petitioners towards betterment charges during the pendency of this writ petition shall be retained by the respondents and shall be given due credit while determining the amount payable by the petitioners after complying with the procedure prescribed under Section 21 of the BDA Act, 1976 in letter and spirit and upon raising a fresh demand in accordance with law. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE HJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23