M/S Surya Heights vs. State Of Karnataka
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/s. Surya Heights, a registered partnership firm, filed a writ petition challenging a demand notice dated September 7, 2020, issued by the Joint Director (Building License Directory-North) of Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP). The demand notice included charges for Ground Rent, GST on Ground Rent, Security Deposit, License Fee, Scrutiny Fee, Water Supply, Ring Road charges, Slum Development charges, Transportation Charges (MSRD), and Karnataka State Building and Other Construction Workers Welfare Board contributions. The petitioner also sought to quash a Government Order dated January 18, 2007, and its corrigendum dated February 28, 2007, regarding upfront collection of labour welfare cess, and to declare Bye-law 3.9 of the BBMP Building Bye-laws, 2003, as unconstitutional. The petitioner sought directions for the BBMP to issue a revised building plan and license without insisting on the payment of the disputed amounts.
Held
The Court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the impugned demand notice dated September 7, 2020, issued by respondent No.4 (Joint Director, BBMP). The Court directed respondents No.3 and 4 (BBMP) to issue the petitioner's building revised plan and license. The Court further directed the BBMP to process the petitioner's application for the revised plan and license strictly in accordance with law, without withholding it on the ground that the BBMP might file an appeal against the reported judgment. However, it was clarified that the issuance of the plan and license would be subject to the outcome of any appeal filed by the BBMP. The Court's reasoning was based on the fact that similar issues involving relevant bye-laws and government circulars had been comprehensively adjudicated and settled by coordinate benches in previous cases, specifically referencing "M/s Sapthagiri Shelters" and "Sunderam Shetty" cases, which had declared certain levies and bye-laws as ultra vires and invalid.
Key Issues
1. Whether the demand notice dated September 7, 2020, issued by the Joint Director, BBMP, demanding various charges including Ground Rent, GST on Ground Rent, Security Deposit, License Fee, Scrutiny Fee, Water Supply, Ring Road, Slum Development, Transportation Charges, and Labour Welfare Cess, is legally sustainable. 2. Whether the Government Order dated January 18, 2007, and its corrigendum dated February 28, 2007, directing upfront collection of labour welfare cess, are valid. 3. Whether Bye-law 3.9 of the Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Building Bye-laws, 2003, framed under the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, is unconstitutional, arbitrary, illegal, and ultra vires. Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner sought to quash the demand notice and related government orders, and declare the bye-law unconstitutional. They relied on previous judgments by coordinate benches of the High Court. Revenue/State's Arguments: The judgment does not record specific arguments made by the respondents. However, the court's decision implies that the respondents' demand was based on the challenged bye-laws and government orders.
Sections Cited
Section 45-B, Rule 37-A, Bye-law 3.9, Bye-law 3.8
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORAL ORDER This 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 No.BBMP/Addl.Com/YLK/0791/2019-20 dated 07.09.2020 vide Annexure-C issued by respondent No.4 in so far as the demand of Rs.32,46,812/- towards Ground Rent, Rs.5,84,426/- towards GST of 18% on Ground HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26099 Rent, Rs.8,10,892/- towards security deposit, Rs.41,32,306/- towards License Fee, Rs.4,19,076/- towards Scrutiny Fee, Rs.11,80,371/- towards Water Supply, Rs.11,80,371/- towards Ring Road, Rs.5,90,186/- towards Slum Development, Rs.29,50,928/- towards Transportation charges (MSRD) and Rs.13,62.000/- towards Karnataka State Building and other Construction Workers Welfare Board is concerned.
(b) 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-D.
(c) Issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction declaring that Bye-law No.3.9 in the Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Building Bye-laws, 2003 framed under the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act as unconstitutional, arbitrary, illegal and ultra vires; HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26099 (d) issue writ of mandamus or similar writ or order or direction directing the respondent Nos.3 and 4 to issue building revised plan and license pursuant to their communication issued by the respondent No.4 without insisting for payment of amount mentioned above.
(e) issue any other appropriate writ or order or direction 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 HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26099 quashed the Government Circulars dated 04.09.2015, 27.01.2017, and 30.03.2017. and 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 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 HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26099 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 07.09.2020 issued by respondent No.4 as per Annexure-C is hereby set-aside. (iii) Respondent Nos.3 and 4 - BBMP are hereby directed to issue building revised plan and license.
(iv) Respondent Nos.3 and 4 - BBMP are directed to forthwith process the petitioner’s application seeking building revised plan and license, strictly in accordance with law.
(v) It is made clear that the issuance of the building revised plan and license shall not be withheld merely on the ground HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26099 that the BBMP is contemplating to file an appeal against the reported judgment.
(vi) If the building revised plan and license 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
NBM List No.: 2 Sl No.: 1
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.