M/S Nandi Housing PVT LTD vs. State Of Karnataka
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/s. Nandi Housing Pvt. Ltd., filed a writ petition before the High Court of Karnataka challenging a demand notice dated August 13, 2021, issued by the Joint Director (Town Planning-South), Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP). The demand notice included various charges such as scrutiny fee, license fee, ground rent, betterment fee, security deposit, cess for water supply, ring road, slum improvement, mass rapid transport system, surcharge on cess, administrative charges on labour cess, and labour cess. The petitioner sought to quash these demands and also challenged the constitutional validity of certain bye-laws, government orders, circulars, and provisions of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961, and related rules.
Held
The High Court of Karnataka, in its order dated July 2, 2025, allowed the writ petition. The Court noted that similar issues had been comprehensively adjudicated by coordinate benches in previous cases, specifically citing W.P. No. 23086/2022 (M/s Sapthagiri Shelters) and W.P. No. 36017/2018 (Sunderam Shetty). In Sunderam Shetty, the levies of Ground Rent, License Fee, Building License Fee, and Scrutiny Fee under the relevant bye-laws were declared ultra vires the Act and quashed. Similarly, in M/s Sapthagiri Shelters, Karnataka Act No. 01 of 2022 and Karnataka Act No. 37 of 2024 were struck down for illegally linking fees to market/guidance value, and related circulars and Clause 3.8 of the BBMP Building Bye-laws, 2003, concerning Ground Rent, were quashed. The Court found that the issues in the present petition were squarely covered by these binding decisions. Consequently, the impugned demand notice dated August 13, 2021, issued by Respondent No.4, was set aside. The BBMP was directed to issue a fresh/modified plan and forthwith process the petitioner's application for a building license and building plan sanction strictly in accordance with law. The Court clarified that the issuance of the license and plan approval should not be withheld due to any contemplation of appeal by the BBMP, but would be subject to the outcome of any appeal filed.
Key Issues
1. Whether the demand notice dated 13.08.2021 issued by Respondent No.4, demanding various fees and charges including scrutiny fee, license fee, ground rent, betterment fee, security deposit, and various cesses, is legal and valid? (Question of law and fact, turning on the interpretation of relevant bye-laws, government orders, and statutory provisions). 2. Whether Bye-law No. 3.9 of the Bangalore Mahanagara Palike Building Bye-laws, 2003, is unconstitutional, arbitrary, illegal, and ultravires? (Question of law, turning on constitutional principles and statutory powers). 3. Whether the Government Order No. LD 300 LET 2006 dated 18.01.2007 and its corrigendum dated 28.02.2007, directing upfront collection of labour welfare cess, are liable to be quashed? (Question of law, turning on the validity of executive orders). 4. Whether the Circular No. He.Ni.Ka.Pa.Ko/P.R/320/2020-21 dated 14.08.2020 issued by Respondent No.2 is liable to be quashed? (Question of law, turning on the validity of administrative circulars). 5. Whether Section 18-A(i) and (iv) of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961, as amended, are liable to be quashed? (Question of law, turning on statutory interpretation). 6. Whether Notification No. UDD 3 TTP 2015 dated 25.02.2020, in so far as it amends Rule 37-A and Rule 37-C, is liable to be quashed? (Question of law, turning on the validity of subordinate legislation). Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner sought to quash the demand notice and challenged the legality and constitutionality of various provisions and directives. The specific arguments are not detailed in the provided text, but the reliefs sought indicate a challenge to the basis of the demands. Revenue/State's Arguments: The arguments of the respondents (State of Karnataka and BBMP) are not explicitly recorded in the provided judgment excerpt. However, their role as respondents implies they would defend the demand notice and the validity of the impugned provisions.
Sections Cited
Section 18-A, Rule 37-A, Rule 37-C
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Before: DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
The captioned petition is filed seeking the following reliefs: i) issue a writ of certiorari or similar writ or order or direction to quash the demand notice No.BBMP/Addl.Dir/ JDSOUTH/ 0006/20-21 dated 13.08.2021 at Annexure –D issued by the respondent No.4 only in so far as the demand of Rs.4,27,153/- towards Scrutiny Fee, Rs.85,43,055/- towards License Fee, Rs.50,40,402/- towards ground Rent and GST, Rs.18,98,457/- towards Betterment fee for building, Rs.94,92,2831/- towards security deposit, Cess of Rs.3,07,557/- towards water supply scheme (BWSSB), Rs.3,07,557/- towards Ring Road(BDA), Rs.1,53,778/- towards improving slums(KSCB), Rs.15,37,784/- towards Mass Rapid Transport System(BDA), Rs.1,21,404/- towards Surcharge of 5% on Cess Rs.1,72,598/- towards 1% administrative charges on Labour Cess and labour cess of Rs.1,70,88,000/- are concerned; ii) Issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction declaring that Bye-law No.3.9 in the Bangalore Mahanagara Palike Building Bye-laws, 2003 as unconstitutional, arbitrary, illegal and ultravires; HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25388 iii) Issue Writ of Certiorari quashing the Government Order issued by the 2nd Respondent bearing G.O.No.LD 300 LET 2006 dated 18.01.2007 and the corrigendum bearing No. LD 300 LET 2006 dated 28.02.2007 directing upfront collection of labour welfare cess, as contained in ANNEXURE –E iv) issue Writ of Certiorari or similar Writ, order or direction to quash the Circular bearing No.He.Ni.Ka.Pa.Ko/ P.R/320/2020-21 dated 14.08.2020 at Annexure-F issued by the 2nd Respondent; v) 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 Act No.23 of 2004 is concerned. vi) grant an order, direction or writ in the nature of Certiorari quashing the Notification issued by the 1st Respondent bearing No. UDD 3 TTP 2015dated 25.02.2020 as contained in ANNEXURE-H in so far as the amended Rule 37-A and Rule 37-C are concerned; vii) issue writ of mandamus or similar writ or order or direction directing the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 to issue building plan and license pursuant to the demand notice No.BBMP/Addl.Dir/ JDSOUTH/ 0006/20-21 dated 13.08.2021 at Annexure –D issued by the respondent No.4 without insisting for payment of aforesaid demands. HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25388 viii) 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.
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 HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25388 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: ORDER (i) The writ petition is allowed. (ii) The impugned demand notice dated 13.08.2021 issued by respondent No.4 as per Annexure-D is hereby set-aside. HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25388 (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 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 HDK List No.: 2 Sl No.: 5
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.