Smt K Chandramma vs. The State Of Karnataka

WP/12603/2020HC KarnatakaGSTCNR KAHC01032634202016 July 2025Bench: SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM9 pages

For Petitioner: SRI. B. PRAMOD, ADVOCATE AND SRI. G.V. SUDHAKAR, ADVOCATEFor Respondent: SRI. H.K. KENCHEGOWDA, AGA FOR R1 TO R3; SRI. B.L. SANJEEV, ADVOCATE FOR R4 AND R5

AI SummaryAllowed

Facts

The petitioners, a group of individuals, filed a writ petition challenging various levies and demands made by the Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) and other state authorities. These levies included Ground Rent, GST on Ground Rent, Betterment charges, License fees, scrutiny fees, various cesses, and surcharges. The petitioners sought to quash Section 18-A of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961, specific notifications regarding Rules 37-A and 37-C, and circulars issued by the BBMP and the Labour Department. They also challenged a demand notice dated 14.10.2020 issued by the Assistant Director, Town Planning (South), BBMP, which detailed these charges. The core of the dispute revolved around the legality and validity of these charges imposed on the petitioners for obtaining building plan sanctions and licenses.

Held

The Court allowed the writ petition, quashing the impugned demand notice dated 14.10.2020 issued by respondent No.5 (BBMP) as per Annexure-D. The Court directed the BBMP to issue a fresh or modified plan as the case may be. Furthermore, the BBMP was directed to forthwith process the petitioners' application seeking a building license and sanction of the building plan strictly in accordance with law. The Court clarified that the issuance of the building license and approval of the plan shall not be withheld on the ground that the BBMP might be contemplating an appeal against the judgment. Any issued license or plan would be subject to the outcome of any appeal filed by the BBMP. The Court based its decision on prior judgments by coordinate benches in 'M/s Sapthagiri Shelters' and 'Sunderam Shetty' cases, which had comprehensively adjudicated similar issues. These prior judgments had declared certain levies like Ground Rent, License Fee, Building License Fee, and Scrutiny Fee as ultra vires the Act and had quashed related government circulars and bye-laws. The Court found that the issues in the present petition were squarely covered by these binding decisions, rendering separate adjudication unnecessary.

Key Issues

1. Whether Section 18-A(1) and (iv) of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961, as amended by Karnataka Act No. 23 of 2004, are ultra vires the Constitution? (This is a question of law). 2. Whether the Notification dated 25/02/2020, inserting Rules 37-A and 37-C into the Karnataka Planning Authority Rules, 1965, is illegal, particularly concerning the linking of fees to market/guidance values under Section 45-B of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957? (This is a question of law). 3. Whether the circulars dated 04/09/2015 and 14/08/2020 issued by Respondent No.4 (BBMP), and the Government Order dated 18/01/2007 and its corrigendum dated 28/02/2007 issued by Respondent No.2 (Labour Department) mandating upfront collection of labour welfare cess, are illegal and arbitrary in their application to the petitioners? (This is a question of mixed law and fact). 4. Whether the demand notice dated 14/10/2020 issued by Respondent No.5 (Assistant Director, Town Planning) demanding various charges including Ground rent, GST on Ground rent, Betterment charges, License fee, scrutiny fee, cesses, and surcharges is illegal, without jurisdiction, and arbitrary? (This is a question of mixed law and fact). Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioners argued that the impugned provisions, notifications, circulars, and the demand notice were illegal, without jurisdiction, and arbitrary. They sought to quash these actions and obtain a building plan sanction without these insisted charges. Revenue/State's Arguments: The judgment does not explicitly record arguments from the respondents. However, the existence of the demand notice and the challenged provisions implies their defense of the levies.

Sections Cited

Section 18-A, Rule 37-A, Rule 37-C, Section 45-B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26309 WP No. 12603 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 12603 OF 2020 (LB-BMP) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. K. CHANDRAMMA, W/O LATE G. NARAYANA SWAMY NAIDU, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS 2. SRI. N. DWARAKISH S/O LATE G NARAYANA SWAMY NAIDU AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS 3. SRI. N. BALAJI S/O LATE G. NARAYANA SWAMY NAIDU AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS 4. SMT. HEMANTHI, D/O LATE G. NARAYANA SWAMY NAIDU, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, 5. SRI. G. RAJAGOPAL NAIDU, S/O LATE G. GANGAIAH NAIDU, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, 6. SRI. R. DAYANAND KUMAR, S/O SRI G. RAJAGOPAL NAIDU, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, 7. SRI. R. DEEPAK KUMAR S/O SRI G RAJAGOPAL NAIDU AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS PETITIONER NO.1 TO 7 ARE RESIDING AT NO. 246, SARAKKI MAIN ROAD J.P NAGAR, 1ST PHASE BANGALORE - 560 078. Digitally signed by NAGARAJA B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26309 WP No. 12603 of 2020 8. SRI. G. PURUSHOTHA, S/O LATE GANGAIAH NAIDU AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS RESIDING AT NO. 166, PIPELINE ROAD KANAKAPURA ROAD WEST, SARAKKI GATE, BANGALORE - 560 078. 9. SRI. P. ESHWAR KUMAR, S/O SRI G PURUSHOTHAM, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, R/AT NO. 166, PIPELINE ROAD, KANAKAPURA ROAD WEST, SARAKKI GATE, BANGALORE - 560 078. 10. SRI. P. DARSHAN KUMAR S/O SRI G PURUSHOTHAM AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS PETITIONER NO.8 TO 10 ARE RESIDING AT NO. 166, PIPELINE ROAD KANAKAPURA ROAD WEST, SARAKKI GATE, BANGALORE - 560 078. 11. SMT. MOHAN KUMARI G D/O LATE GANGAIAH NAIDU ABED ABOUT 54 YEARS R/AT NO. 18, 1ST CROSS S.RAMA RAO LAYOUT, KATTRHRIGUPPE BSK 3RD STAGE, BANGALORE - 560 085. 12. SMT. BHARATHI BABU G D/O LATE GANGAIAH NAIDU AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS R/AT NO. 7, 1ST MAIN 2ND BLOCK, THYAGARAJANAGAR BANGALORE - 560 028. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. B. PRAMOD, ADVOCATE AND SRI. G.V. SUDHAKAR, ADVOCATE) - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26309 WP No. 12603 of 2020 AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THE URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, VIKASA SOUDHA, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE - 560 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THE LABOUR DEPARTMENT VIKASA SOUDHA, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE - 560 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS UNDER SECRETARY. 3. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS AND LEGISLATION, VIKASA SOUDHA, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE - 560 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 4. BRUHATH BANGALORE MAHANAGAR PALIKE N.R. SQUARE, BANGALORE - 560 002, REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER. 5. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR TOWN PLANNING (SOUTH), BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE, BBMP COMPLEX, 9TH CROSS, 9TH MAIN ROAD, JAYANAGAR 2ND BLOCK BANGALORE - 560 011. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. H.K. KENCHEGOWDA, AGA FOR R1 TO R3; SRI. B.L. SANJEEV, ADVOCATE FOR R4 AND R5) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-QUASH SECTION 18-A OF THE KARNATAKA TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26309 WP No. 12603 of 2020 ACT, 1961 BROUGHT INTO EFFECT BY KARNATAKA ACT NO.23 OF 2004 (KARNATAKA TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (AMENDMENT) ACT, 1998) AS CONTAINED IN ANNEXURE-G1 INSOFAR AS SECTION 18-A(1) AND (iv) OF THE KARNATAKA ACT NO.23 OF 2004 IS CONCERNED AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

ORAL ORDER

The caption petition is filed seeking the following reliefs: “WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to:

i) grant an order, direction or writ in the nature of Certiorari quashing Section 18-A of the Karnataka Town & Country Planning Act, 1961 brought into effect by Karnataka Act No.23 of 2004 (Karnataka Town & Country Planning (Amendment) Act, 1998) as contained in ANNEXURE-G1 insofar as Section 18-A(1) and (iv) of the Karnataka Act No. 23 of 2004 is concerned;

ii) Grant an order, direction or writ in the nature of Certiorari quashing the Notification issued by the 1st Respondent bearing No. UDD 3 TPP 2015 dated 25/02/2020 as contained in ANNEXURE-G insofar as the inserted Rule 37-A and 37-C is concerned; HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26309 iii) issue a writ or order by way of certiorari quashing the circular dated 04/09/2015, bearing No. Heninayo/JD(N)/DM3/PR/320/2015-16 issued by the Respondent No.4 (Annexure-E) in so far the Petitioners are concerned.

iv) issue a writ or order by way of certiorari quashing the circular dated 14/08/2020, bearing No. He.Ni.Ka.Pa.Ko/P.R/320/2020-21 issued by the Respondent No.4 (Annexure-H) in so far the Petitioners are concerned.

v) issue a writ or order by way of certiorari quashing the Government order bearing No.LD/300/LET/2006 dated 18/01/2007 and the corrigendum order No.LD/300/LET/2006, dated 28/02/2007 issued by the bearing Respondent No.2 mandating upfront collection of labour welfare cess (Annexure-F) in so far the Petitioners are concerned.

vi) issue a writ or order by way of certiorari quashing the demand notice dated 14/10/2020, bearing No.BBMP/Ad.Com/SUT/0569/20-21, issued by the Respondent No.5 (Annexure-D) for demanding in so far it is concerned to Ground rent, GST on Ground rent, Betterment charges for building, Betterment charges for site, excess Security deposit, revised License fee, revised scrutiny fee, Cess for water supply scheme, Surcharge for formation outer ring road, Cess for improvement of slum, Surcharge for Mass Rapid Transport System, Labour cess and etc., as illegal, without juri iction and arbitrary.

vii) issue a writ or order or direction by way of mandamus directing the Respondent No.4 and 5 BBMP to issue the sanction plan for construction of Residential Multi Dwelling Units Building in the Schedule Property without insisting the Ground rent, GST on Ground rent, Betterment charges for building, Betterment charges for site, excess Security deposit, revised License fee, revised scrutiny fee, Cess for water supply scheme, Surcharge for formation outer ring road, Cess for improvement of slum, Surcharge for Mass Rapid Transport System, Labour cess and etc., and HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26309 viii) pass any such other order(s) as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity.”

The Co-ordinate Benches of this Court, in W.P.No.23086/2022 and connected matters(herein referred to as “M/s Sapthagiri Shelters”) as well as W.P.No.36017/2018 and connected matters(herein referred to as “Sunderam Shetty”), have comprehensively adjudicated the issue involved and settled the controversy.

In Sunderam Shetty and connected cases, the Co-ordinate Bench declared the levies of Ground Rent, License Fee, Building License Fee, and Scrutiny Fee under the relevant bye-laws as ultra vires the Act and quashed the Government Circulars dated 04.09.2015, 27.01.2017, and 30.03.2017. 4. Similarly, in M/s Sapthagiri Shelters and connected matters, the Co-ordinate Bench struck down the Karnataka Act No.01 of 2022 and Karnataka Act No.37 of 2024, holding that linking fees under Rule 37-A of the HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26309 Karnataka Planning Authority Rules, 1965 to market/guidance value under Section 45-B of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 is illegal. It further quashed all related Circulars and declared Clause 3.8 of the BBMP Building Bye-laws, 2003, pertaining to Ground Rent, as invalid.

The issues raised in the present writ petition are squarely covered by the above binding decisions, wherein the relevant bye-laws and government circulars have been set aside.

In light of the authoritative pronouncements, the present petition does not warrant separate adjudication and is liable to be allowed in terms of the operative directions issued in the aforesaid writ petitions.

Accordingly, this Court proceeds to pass the following: HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26309 ORDER i. The writ petition is allowed. ii. The impugned demand notice dated 14.10.2020 issued by respondent No.5 as per Annexure-D is hereby set-aside. iii. Respondent - BBMP is hereby directed to issue fresh/modified plan as the case may be. iv. Respondent - BBMP is directed to forthwith process the petitioner’s application seeking building license and sanction of the building plan, strictly in accordance with law. v. It is made clear that the issuance of the building license and approval of the plan shall not be withheld merely on the ground that the BBMP is contemplating to file an appeal against the reported judgment. HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26309 vi. If the building license and sanction plan are issued, the same shall be subject to the outcome of any appeal that may be filed by the BBMP against the said judgment. Pending applications, if any, are also disposed off. (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE

KAV List No.: 2 Sl No.: 11 CT: BHK

Reproduced from the public record of the Karnataka High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.