Sri N R Pandit Aradhya vs. State Of Karnataka

Facts

The petitioner, Sri N.R. Pandit Aradhya, represented by his GPA M/s. Vanshika Smart Spaces, filed a writ petition challenging a demand notice and challan dated June 14, 2021, issued by the Joint Director (Town Planning-South) of Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike (BBMP). The demand included various charges such as scrutiny fee, license fee, betterment charges for building and site, security deposit, ground rent and GST, 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 Court held that the issues raised in the present writ petition are squarely covered by previous binding decisions of coordinate benches. Specifically, in the case of '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 related government circulars were quashed. In the case of '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. All related circulars were quashed, and Clause 3.8 of the BBMP Building Bye-laws, 2003, pertaining to Ground Rent, was declared invalid. Consequently, the present petition was allowed in terms of the operative directions issued in those prior judgments. The impugned demand notice was set aside, and the BBMP was directed to issue a fresh/modified plan and process the petitioner's application for a building license strictly in accordance with law, without insisting on the payment of the impugned demands. The issuance of the license and plan would be subject to the outcome of any appeal filed by the BBMP.

Key Issues

1. Whether the demand notice dated 14.06.2021, issued by Respondent No.4, demanding various fees and charges including scrutiny fee, license fee, betterment charges, security deposit, ground rent and GST, cess, surcharge, administrative charges, and labour cess, is illegal and liable to be quashed, particularly in light of previous judgments of this Court? (Question of law and fact, turning on the validity of the demand notice and the underlying levies). 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 the validity of the bye-law). 3. Whether the Government Order 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 the government order and corrigendum). 4. Whether the Circular dated 14.08.2020 issued by the 2nd Respondent is liable to be quashed? (Question of law, turning on the validity of the circular). 5. Whether Section 18-A of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961, specifically sub-sections (i) and (iv), is liable to be quashed? (Question of law, turning on the validity of the statutory provision). 6. Whether Notification dated 25.02.2020, amending Rule 37-A and Rule 37-C of the Karnataka Planning Authority Rules, 1965, is liable to be quashed? (Question of law, turning on the validity of the amended rules). Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner sought to quash the demand notice and challenged the constitutional validity of various bye-laws, government orders, circulars, and statutory provisions, relying on previous judgments of the High Court that had adjudicated similar issues. Revenue/State's arguments: The judgment does not record specific arguments from the respondents.