HC relief for Bengaluru woman in penalty battle against MUDA

Bengaluru: Even circulars or government orders cannot be contrary to Acts or rules, the high court observed in a recent order while coming to the rescue of a petitioner from Bengaluru.
“Even a single rupee of penalty cannot be imposed on a citizen, except in accordance with the law,” Justice M Nagaprasanna noted while directing Mysore Urban Development Authority (MUDA) to refund with interest the entire sum of Rs 6.6 lakh, which was recovered as penalty, to petitioner Radhika Bhat.
In case MUDA fails to refund the amount within eight weeks, the petitioner is entitled to 12% interest from the date of order till payment, the order stated. Radhika had paid under protest the penalty for a site originally allotted to her father-in-law Vishwanath Bhat in Mysuru in December 1988 by the housing society.
After change of khata and execution of sale deed in March 2018, following payment of penalty, she challenged the November 23, 2016, endorsement issued by MUDA.
MUDA had said she was required to pay the penalty as her father-in-law had failed to construct a structure on the allotted site. Her father-in-law, the original allottee, died in November 1998 and his successor, Radhika’s mother-in-law, passed away in April 2007. Five years later, in September 2012, Radhika’s husband Venkatesh also died, leaving behind their two children.
Radhika contended that by an erroneous interpretation of the rules, MUDA had charged a penalty of 25% of the site value and argued that it could be levied only if the allottee sold the site. MUDA claimed it could have cancelled the allotment itself and the petitioner can’t contend she is not liable to pay the penalty as till date, as the site has been kept as land bank. Justice M Nagaprasanna pointed out that the rules relied upon by MUDA were brought into force only from May 2, 2013, and could be applied to allotments made between 2001 and 2005.
The judge said Karnataka Urban Development Authorities Act, 1987, does not empower framing of such a rule that imposes penalty. “When the rule prohibits it, the communication cannot permit it, as it is a well-worn law that a circular or government order by itself cannot be contrary to the law, much less an ordinary communication from the urban development department to MUDA. Such a communication cannot be elevated to the status of a circular or government order having the effect of amending the rule,” the judge observed.