Smt N Jamuna vs. State Of Karnataka
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioners, represented by their General Power of Attorney holder M/s. Siddartha Builders, filed a writ petition challenging a demand notice dated March 15, 2021, issued by the Joint Director, Town Planning, Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike (BBMP). The demand notice included various charges such as Ground Rent, GST, Scrutiny Fee, License Fee, Betterment Fee, Security Deposit, and various surcharges and cess related to water supply, ring road, slum improvement, mass rapid transport system, and labour cess. The petitioners sought to quash these demands and also challenged the constitutional validity of certain bye-laws and provisions of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961, and related government orders and notifications.
Held
The High Court allowed the writ petition. The Court noted that coordinate benches of the same High Court had comprehensively adjudicated similar issues in previous cases, namely "M/s Sapthagiri Shelters" and "Sunderam Shetty." In "Sunderam Shetty," the court had declared the levies of Ground Rent, License Fee, Building License Fee, and Scrutiny Fee under relevant bye-laws as ultra vires the Act and quashed certain government circulars. In "M/s Sapthagiri Shelters," the court struck down Karnataka Act No. 01 of 2022 and Karnataka Act No. 37 of 2024, holding the linking of 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, as illegal, and also quashed related circulars and Clause 3.8 of the BBMP Building Bye-laws, 2003, pertaining to Ground Rent. The Court found that the issues raised in the present petition were squarely covered by these binding decisions. Consequently, the impugned demand notice dated March 15, 2021, was set aside. The BBMP was directed to issue a fresh/modified plan and process the petitioner's application for building license and plan sanction strictly in accordance with law, without withholding them based on the pendency of any appeal by the BBMP against the cited judgments. The issuance of the license and plan approval would be subject to the outcome of any appeal filed by the BBMP.
Key Issues
1. Whether the demand notice dated March 15, 2021, issued by Respondent No. 4, demanding various fees and charges including Ground Rent, GST, Scrutiny Fee, License Fee, Betterment Fee, Security Deposit, surcharges, and labour cess, is illegal and liable to be quashed? The petitioners argued that these demands are arbitrary and illegal. 2. Whether Bye-law No. 3.9 of the Bangalore Mahanagara Palike Building Bye-laws, 2003, is unconstitutional, arbitrary, illegal, and ultra vires? The petitioners contended that this bye-law is invalid. 3. Whether the Government Order dated January 18, 2007, and its corrigendum dated February 28, 2007, directing upfront collection of labour welfare cess, are liable to be quashed? The petitioners challenged the legality of this order. 4. 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 unconstitutional and liable to be quashed? The petitioners questioned the validity of these statutory provisions. 5. Whether Notification dated February 25, 2020, amending Rule 37-A and Rule 37-C of the Karnataka Planning Authority Rules, 1965, is illegal and liable to be quashed? The petitioners challenged the amended rules. The respondents did not record specific arguments in the judgment provided, but the court's decision implies they defended the demand notice and the relevant statutory provisions and bye-laws.
Sections Cited
Section 45-B, Rule 37-A, Rule 37-C, Bye-law No. 3.9, Section 18-A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Before: SMT. N. JAMUNA, DR. N. PRAKASH, SMT. ANURADHA G.
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/0089/2017-18 dated 15.03.2021 at Annexure – D issued by the respondent No.4 only in so far as the demand of Rs.11,26,372/- towards Ground Rent and GST, Rs.95,455/- towards scrutiny Fee, Rs.19,09,105/- towards License Fee, Rs.4,24,246/- towards Betterment fee for building, Rs.21,21,228/- towards security deposit, surcharge of Rs.9,41,926/- towards water supply scheme (BWSSB), Rs.9,41,926/- towards Ring Road(BDA), Rs.4,70,963/- towards improving slums(KSCB), HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25386 Rs.23,54,815/- towards Mass Rapid Transport System(BDA), Rs.2,47,875/- levy and collection of 5% cess on surcharge, 1% administrative charges on Labour Cess and labour cess of Rs.38,03,000/- 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; 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 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; v) 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; vi) issue writ of mandamus or similar writ or order or direction directing the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 to issue building plan HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25386 and license pursuant to the demand notice No.BBMP/Addl.Dir/ JDSOUTH/0089/2017-18 dated 15.03.2021 at Annexure –D without insisting for payment of aforesaid demands; vii) 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 HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25386 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 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:25386 ORDER (i) The writ petition is allowed. (ii) The impugned demand notice dated 15.03.2021 issued by respondent Nos.3 and 4 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. (vi) If the building license and sanction plan are issued, the same shall be subject to the HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25386 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.: 3
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.