Sri B S Lakshminarayana Reddy vs. The State Of Karnataka

WP/16250/2021HC KarnatakaGSTCNR KAHC01032304202116 July 2025Bench: SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM8 pages

For Petitioner: SRI. RADHANANDAN B. S., ADVOCATEFor Respondent: SMT.SPOORTHY V., HCGP FOR R1 TO R3; SRI.H.DEVENDRAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R4 AND R5

AI SummaryAllowed

Facts

The petitioners, Sri B S Lakshminarayana Reddy and M/s. Splendid Properties, filed a writ petition challenging Section 18-A of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961, as amended, and various notifications, circulars, and government orders related to the collection of charges like ground rent, GST on ground rent, betterment charges, license fees, and labour welfare cess. The petitioners sought to quash these provisions and demand notices issued by the Bruhath Bangalore Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) and its Assistant Director. The petition also sought a mandamus directing the BBMP to issue a sanctioned plan without insisting on these charges.

Held

The High Court allowed the writ petition, noting that the issues raised were squarely covered by previous binding decisions of coordinate benches. In 'Sunderam Shetty' and connected cases, levies of Ground Rent, License Fee, Building License Fee, and Scrutiny Fee under relevant bye-laws were declared ultra vires the Act and related government circulars were quashed. In 'M/s Sapthagiri Shelters' and connected matters, Karnataka Act No.01 of 2022 and Karnataka Act No.37 of 2024 were struck down for illegally linking fees under Rule 37-A of the Karnataka Planning Authority Rules, 1965, to market/guidance value under Section 45-B of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957. Clause 3.8 of the BBMP Building Bye-laws, 2003, pertaining to Ground Rent, was also declared invalid. Consequently, the impugned demand notice issued by respondent No.5 (BBMP) was set aside. The BBMP was directed to issue a fresh/modified plan and process the petitioner's application for a building license and sanction of the building plan strictly in accordance with law, without withholding it based on contemplation of an appeal. Any issued license/plan would be subject to the outcome of any appeal filed by the BBMP.

Key Issues

1. Whether Section 18-A(i) 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. 2. Whether the notification dated 25/02/2020, inserting Rules 37-A and 37-C into the Karnataka Planning Authority Rules, 1965, is illegal. 3. Whether the circulars dated 04/09/2015 and 14/08/2020 issued by the BBMP, and the government order dated 18/01/2007 and its corrigendum dated 28/02/2007, mandating upfront collection of certain charges, are illegal and without jurisdiction. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioners contended that the impugned provisions, notifications, circulars, and government orders were illegal, without jurisdiction, and arbitrary, particularly concerning the demand for ground rent, GST on ground rent, betterment charges, and labour cess. They sought to quash these levies and obtain a sanctioned plan without such demands. Revenue/State's arguments: The judgment does not record specific arguments from the respondents. However, it refers to previous judgments by coordinate benches that have adjudicated similar issues.

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:26298 WP No. 16250 of 2021 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. 16250 OF 2021 (LB-BMP) BETWEEN: 1. SRI B S LAKSHMINARAYANA REDDY, SB2-34, VIJAYA ENCLAVE, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, KUMARADHARA BLOCK, MSRS NAGAR OR VIJAYA BANK LAYOUT, BANGALORE - 560 076 REP. BY GPA HOLDER OF 2ND PETITIONER SRI. RAM MOHAN VORA. 2. M/S. SPLENDID PROPERTIES, NO.1, MAHAVEER TOWERS, 3RD FLOOR, 24TH MAIN, 6TH PHASE, JP NAGAR, BANGALORE-560078. A PARTNERSHIP FIRM REP. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER SRI. RAM MOHAN VORA. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. RADHANANDAN B. S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, THE URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, VIKASA SOUDHA, DR B R AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE - 560 001. REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26298 WP No. 16250 of 2021 2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THE LABOUR DEPARTMENT VIKASA SOUDHA, DR B R AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE - 650 001. 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 - 560002. REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER. 5. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR TOWN PLANNING (BOMMANAHALLI), BRUHATH BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE, BEGURU MAIN ROAD, BANGALORE – 560068. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT.SPOORTHY V., HCGP FOR R1 TO R3; SRI.H.DEVENDRAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R4 AND R5) THIS W.P 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 ACT,1961 BROUGHT INTO EFFECT BY KARNATAKA ACT NO.23 OF 2004 (KARNATAKA TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (AMENDMENT) ACT,1998) AS CONTAINED IN ANNEXURE-L1 IN - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26298 WP No. 16250 of 2021 SO FAR AS SECTION 18-A(i) AND (iv) OF THE KARNATAKA ACT NO.23 OF 2004 IS CONCERNED AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

ORAL ORDER

The captioned petition is filed seeking the following reliefs: “WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to: 1) 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-L1 insofar as Section 18-A(i) 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 TTP 2015 dated 25/02/2020 as contained in ANNEXURE-L insofar as the inserted Rule 37-A and 37-C is concerned;

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-J) in so far the Petitioner is concerned. HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26298 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-M) in so far the Petitioner is 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 bearing No.LD/300/LET/2006, dated 28/02/2007 issued by the Respondent No.2 mandating upfront collection of labour welfare cess (Annexure-K) in so far the Petitioner is concerned.

vi) issue a writ or order by way of certiorari quashing the demand notice dated 09/07/2021, bearing No.BBMP/Ad.Com/BMH/0129/2021-22, issued by the Respondent No.5 (Annexure-) 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 with respect to 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

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” HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26298

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 Karnataka Planning Authority Rules, 1965 to market/guidance value under Section 45-B of the HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26298 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: ORDER i. The writ petition is allowed. HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26298 ii. The impugned demand notice issued by respondent No.5 as per Annexure-H is hereby set-aside. iii. (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. vi. If the building license and sanction plan are issued, the same shall be subject to HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26298 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.: 4

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.