Sri Rajani Kantha vs. State Of Karnataka
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioners, Sri Rajani Kantha and Pruthvi Chakravarthi T., filed a writ petition before the High Court of Karnataka challenging the constitutional validity of Sections 240A and 240C of the BBMP Act, as inserted by Karnataka Ordinance No. 8 of 2021. They also sought to quash an order dated 9.12.2021 issued by Respondent No. 4 (BBMP), and declared Section 18-A of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961, and amendments to Rules 37-A and 37-C of the Karnataka Planning Authority Rules, 1965, as unconstitutional. Furthermore, they challenged a circular dated 14.8.2020 and demand notes dated 28.10.2024 issued by Respondent No. 5 (Assistant Director Town Planning, BBMP), concerning various charges including ground rent, GST on ground rent, and betterment charges. The petitioners sought a mandamus directing BBMP to issue a sanction plan without insisting on these charges.
Held
The High Court noted that the core issues raised in the present writ petition were substantially covered and decided by a coordinate bench in a reported judgment (W.P.No.23086/2022 and connected matters). The coordinate bench had partly allowed the writ petitions, quashing and setting aside the Karnataka Municipal Corporations and Certain Other Law (Amendment) Acts of 2021 and 2023. It declared Section 18-A of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961, read with Rules 37-A and 37-C of the Karnataka Planning Authority Rules, 1965, applicable only to development proposals on plots exceeding 20,000 square meters. The court also declared illegal the linkage of levies to market or guidance value and quashed all impugned circulars and demand notices. Clause 3.8 of the BBMP Building Bye-laws, 2003, concerning 'Ground Rent', was struck down. Consequently, the present writ petition was allowed, aligning with the operative portion of the coordinate bench's judgment. The impugned demand notices were set aside, and BBMP was directed to issue fresh/modified plans and process the building license application strictly in accordance with law, without withholding it based on a potential appeal against the prior judgment.
Key Issues
1. Whether Sections 240A and 240C inserted by way of amendment to the BBMP Act vide Karnataka Ordinance No. 8 of 2021 are unconstitutional? The petitioners argued for their unconstitutionality. 2. Whether Section 18-A of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961, read with Rules 37-A and 37-C of the Karnataka Planning Authority Rules, 1965, are constitutional and applicable? The petitioners contended they are unconstitutional and ultra vires. 3. Whether the impugned circular dated 14.8.2020 and demand notes dated 28.10.2024 issued by the BBMP, demanding ground rent, GST on ground rent, betterment charges, and other levies, are illegal, without jurisdiction, and arbitrary? The petitioners argued these demands are illegal and arbitrary. The revenue or State's arguments are not explicitly recorded in the provided text, but the judgment notes that the issue was dealt with by a coordinate bench in a reported judgment.
Sections Cited
Section 18-A, Rule 37-A, Rule 37-C, Section 45-B, Clause 3.8
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Before: DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
The captioned petition is filed seeking the following reliefs: a. Issue a writ in the nature of a declaration or any other writ, order, direction of similar nature declaring Sections 240A and 240C inserted by way of amendment to the BBMP Act vide Karnataka Ordinance No. 8 of 2021 unconstitutional; b. Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other writ, order, direction of similar nature quashing the Officer Order dated 9.12.2021 issued by Respondent No. 4 produced at Annexure- E unconstitutional. Vide HE.NI.NA.YO/PR/461/2021-22 c. Issue a writ in the nature of declaration or any other similar writ, order or direction declaring that Section 18- A of Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961 Annexure-G as unconstitutional; d. Issue a writ in the nature of declaration or any other similar writ, order or direction declaring that amendment to Rule 37-A and 37-C of Karnataka Planning Authority Rules issued by Respondent No.1 vide No.UDD 3 TTP 2015 dated 25.02.2020 is ultra vires and unconstitutional; Annexure- F e. Issue a writ in the nature of declaration or any other similar writ, order or direction declaring that Circular dated 14.8.2020 issued by Respondent No.4 bearing number He.Ne.Ka.Pa.Ko./320/2020-21 at Annexure-H is illegal and unconstitutional; f. Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other similar order, writ, or direction quashing Demand Note vide L.P No BBMP/EoDB/CH/32593/24-25 and HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26745 Demand Note vide L.P No BBMP/EoDB/CH/32594/24-25 issued by Respondent No. 5 dated 28.10.2024 produced at Annexure- C and D insofar it is concerned to ground rent, GST on ground rent, Betterment charges for building, betterment charges for site, excess security deposit, received license fee, revised scrutiny fee, cess for water supply scheme, surcharges for formation outer ring road, cess for improvement of slum, surcharges for mass rapid transport system, labour cess and etc., as illegal, without juri iction and arbitrary. g. Issues 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 the 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, surcharges for formation outer ring road, cess for improvement of slum surcharge for mass rapid transport system, labour cess and etc., and h. Pass any such other orders as this Hon'ble court deems fit in the fact and circumstance of the case in the interest of justice and equity.
It is brought to the notice of this Court that across the Bar, the issue is dealt by the Co-ordinate Bench in the reported judgment in W.P.No.23086/2022 and connected matters. The Co-ordinate Bench, while deciding the issue, has set-aside the Karnataka Municipal Corporations and Certain Other Law (Amendment) Act, 2021 (Karnataka Act No.01 of 2022) and the Karnataka HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26745 Municipal Corporations and Certain Other Law (Amendment) Act, 2023, (Karnataka Act No.37 of 2024). Therefore, this Court deems it fit to cull out the operative portion of the order, which reads as under; "ORDER (i) The writ petitions are partly allowed. (ii) The Karnataka Municipal Corporations and Certain Other Law (Amendment) Act, 2021 (Karnataka Act No.01 of 2022), is hereby quashed and set aside. (iii) The Karnataka Municipal Corporations and Certain Other Law (Amendment) Act, 2023, (Karnataka Act No.37 of 2024), is hereby quashed and set aside. (iv) It is hereby declared that the provisions contained in Section 18-A of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961, read with Rules 37-A and 37-C of the Karnataka Planning Authority Rules, 1965, are applicable only in respect of ‘Development Plan’ containing the proposal for construction on plots measuring more than 20,000 square meters in extent and not in respect of plots measuring less than 20,000 square meters. (v) It is hereby declared that if fee has been earlier collected for change of land use or while approving a layout plan, fee shall not be collected for subsequent ‘Development Plan’ in terms of the ‘Note’ HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26745 found below TABLE I of Rule 37-A of the Karnataka Planning Authority Rules, 1965. (vi) It is hereby declared that the linking of the fee leviable under Rule 37-A of the Karnataka Planning Authority Rules, 1965, to the ‘market value’ or ‘guidance value’ as determined under Section 45-B of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957, is illegal. However, liberty is reserved to the respondent-State Government and the BBMP to re-fix a standard after collecting empherical data. (vii) Consequently, all the impugned Circulars which seek to give effect to the Rules 37-A and 37-C of the Karnataka Planning Authority Rules, 1965, are hereby quashed and set aside. (viii) It is hereby declared that Clause 3.8 of the Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Building Bye- laws, 2003, providing for ‘Ground Rent’, is illegal and are accordingly quashed and set aside. (ix) Consequently, all the impugned Demand Notices raised by the respondent-BBMP, in respect of the writ petitioners herein are also quashed and set aside. It would be advisable that the BBMP may come out with a scheme for ‘One Time Settlement’ and settle the levy and collect the fee generally acceptable to the citizens of Bengaluru. This would also augment the present situation." HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26745
In the present writ petition, the core issue raised stands substantially covered and decided by the authoritative pronouncement of the coordinate bench, wherein the writ petitions were partly allowed and several consequential reliefs were granted. The Hon’ble Court, in unequivocal terms, quashed and set aside the Karnataka Municipal Corporations and Certain Other Law (Amendment) Acts of 2021 and 2023 (Karnataka Act Nos.01 of 2022 and 37 of 2024 respectively).
The Court further declared that the provisions under Section 18-A of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961, read with Rules 37-A and 37-C of the Karnataka Planning Authority Rules, 1965, are applicable only to development proposals concerning plots exceeding 20,000 square meters, and not to smaller plots. Importantly, it was also held that if a fee has been previously collected for change of land use or approval of layout plan, no further fee shall be levied for subsequent HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26745 development plans, in view of the explanatory 'Note' to Table I of Rule 37-A.
The Court declared illegal the linkage of such levies to market or guidance value under Section 45-B of the Karnataka Stamp Act, and consequently, quashed all Circulars and demand notices issued to give effect to such unlawful interpretations. Clause 3.8 of the BBMP Building Bye-laws, 2003, imposing 'Ground Rent', was also struck down.
In view of these comprehensive declarations and findings, it is submitted that the controversy raised in the present writ petition no longer survives for adjudication independently, as it is squarely covered by the binding judgment of the coordinate bench. In the light of the law laid down in the reported judgment substantially covering the issue, which is raised in the captioned writ petition, the writ petition is liable to be allowed strictly aligning to the operative portion of the said writ petition. HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26745
In view of the above, this Court proceeds to pass the following; ORDER (i) The writ petition is allowed. (ii) The impugned demand notice and demand note dated 28.10.2024 issued by respondent No.5 as per Annexure-C and D are hereby set-aside. (iii) Respondent- BBMP hereby directed to issue fresh/modified plan as the case may be. (iv) Respondent- BBMP is hereby 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 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:26745 (vi) If the building license and sanction plan are issued, the same shall be subjected to the outcome of any appeal that may be filed by the BBMP against the judgment. Pending applications, if any, are also disposed off. (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE HDK List No.: 2 Sl No.: 31
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.