A L Bhagya vs. State Of Karnataka
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, A.L. Bhagya, filed a writ petition challenging a demand notice dated June 25, 2024, issued by the Assistant Director, Town Planning, Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP). The notice demanded a sum of Rs. 2,55,935/- from the petitioner, which included various fees such as scrutiny fee, license fee, ground rent and GST, betterment fee, lake rejuvenation fee, road cutting fee, cess for water supply and ring road, mass rapid transport system charges, service charges payable to BBMP, and labour cess payable to the Karnataka State Building and Other Construction Workers Welfare Board. The petitioner sought to quash this demand notice and also challenged specific provisions of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961, and related rules, as well as a notification amending these rules.
Held
The Court held that the issues raised in the present writ petition were substantially covered and decided by a coordinate bench in W.P.No.23086/2022 and connected matters. The coordinate bench had partly allowed the writ petitions, quashed the Karnataka Municipal Corporations and Certain Other Law (Amendment) Acts of 2021 and 2023 (Karnataka Act Nos. 01 of 2022 and 37 of 2024), and declared that 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, were 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 circulars and demand notices issued to give effect to such interpretations. Clause 3.8 of the BBMP Building Bye-laws, 2003, concerning 'Ground Rent', was also struck down. Consequently, the present writ petition was allowed, the impugned demand notice dated 25.06.2024 was set aside, and 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. The issuance of the license and plan was not to be withheld pending any appeal by the BBMP, but would be subject to the outcome of such an appeal.
Key Issues
1. Whether the demand notice dated 25.06.2024, demanding Rs. 2,55,935/- from the petitioner, is legally sustainable, particularly concerning the various components of the demand including GST, ground rent, and other development-related charges? (Question of law and mixed fact and law, concerning the validity of the demand notice and the levies therein). 2. Whether Section 18-A of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961, as amended by Karnataka Act No. 23 of 2004, specifically sub-sections (i) and (iv), is applicable to the petitioner's case? (Question of law, concerning the applicability of statutory provisions). 3. Whether the Notification dated 25.02.2020, amending Rule 37-A and Rule 37-C of the Karnataka Planning Authority Rules, 1965, is applicable to the petitioner? (Question of law, concerning the validity and applicability of subordinate legislation). Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner sought to quash the demand notice and challenged the legality of the provisions and amendments under which the demand was raised. The petitioner relied on a coordinate bench's judgment in W.P.No.23086/2022 and connected matters, which had dealt with similar issues. Revenue/State's Arguments: The judgment does not explicitly record arguments made by the respondents. However, their participation in the proceedings implies a defense of the demand notice and the relevant statutory provisions.
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 of certiorari or similar writ or order or direction to quash the demand notice dated 25.06.2024 bearing No.BBMP/EoDB/CH/12794/24-25 calling upon the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.2,55,935/- out of which, Rs.4,132/- towards Scrutiny fee, Rs.82,649/- towards license fee, Rs.48,763/- towards ground rent and GST, Rs.11,773/- towards Betterment fee for building, Rs.34,761/- towards betterment charges for site area, Rs.5,571/- towards Lake Rejunvnation fee, Rs.35,817/- towards road cutting fee, Rs.4,421/- for cess towards Water supply scheme(BWSSB), Rs.4,421/- towards Ring Road(BDA), Rs.61,730/- towards Mass Rapid Transport System (BDA) and Rs.22,104/- towards service charges payable to BBMP and Rs.1,06,524/- towards labour cess payable in favour of Karnataka State Building and other construction workers welfare board which is produced and marked as ANNEXURE-'E' & 'F'. b. Issue a writ of certiorari or similar writ or order or direction to quash provisions of section 18-A of Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961 brought into effect by Karnataka Act No.23 of 2004 by the 1st Respondent at ANNEXURE-`G' in so far as 18-A(i) and (iv) of Karnataka HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26169 Act No.23 of 2004 is concerned in so far as petitioner concern. c. grant an order, direction or writ in the nature of Certiorari quashing the Notification issued by the 1st Respondent bearing No. UDD 3 TPP 2015dated 25.02.2020 as contained in ANNEXURE-'H' in so far as the amended Rule 37-A and Rule 37-C are concerned, in so far as petitioner concern. d. issue writ of mandamus or similar writ or order or direction directing the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to issue building plan and license pursuant to the demand notice No.BBMP/ EoDB/CH/12794/24-25 dated 25.06.2024 at ANNEXURE-'E' & 'F' issued by the respondent No.3 without insisting for payment of aforesaid demands. e. To issue any other appropriate writ or order or direction as deemed fit in the circumstances 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:26169 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:26169 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:26169
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:26169 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:26169
In view of the above, this Court proceeds to pass the following; ORDER (i) The writ petition is allowed. (ii) The impugned demand notice dated 25.06.2024 issued by respondent No.3 as per Annexure-E and F 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. (vi) If the building license and sanction plan are issued, the same shall be subjected HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26169 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.: 10
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.