Smt. C Sapna Reddy vs. The Bruhath Bangalore Mahanagara Palike
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Smt. C. Sapna Reddy, filed a writ petition challenging Byelaws No. 3.9 of the Bangalore Mahanagara Palike Building Bye-laws, 2003, and two demand notices dated 06.11.2021 issued by the Bruhath Bangalore Mahanagara Palike (BBMP). These notices demanded payment of Ground Rent (including GST) and other additional charges. The petitioner sought to declare the byelaws unconstitutional, illegal, and ultra vires, and to quash the demand notices. The BBMP, represented by its Commissioner and Assistant Director of Town Planning, and the State of Karnataka, through the Urban Development and Labour Departments, were the respondents. The petition was filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.
Held
The Court held that the issues raised in the present writ petition were squarely covered by previous binding decisions of co-ordinate benches. In the "Sunderam Shetty" case, levies of Ground Rent, License Fee, Building License Fee, and Scrutiny Fee under relevant bye-laws were declared ultra vires the Act, and certain government circulars were quashed. In the "M/s Sapthagiri Shelters" case, 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 Clause 3.8 of the BBMP Building Bye-laws, 2003, pertaining to Ground Rent, was declared invalid. Consequently, the present petition did not warrant separate adjudication and was liable to be allowed in terms of the operative directions issued in those prior petitions. The demand notices were set aside, and 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. The issuance of the license and plan approval was not to be withheld pending any appeal by the BBMP, but would be subject to the outcome of such appeals.
Key Issues
1. Whether Byelaws No. 3.9 of the Bangalore Mahanagara Palike Building Bye-laws, 2003, are unconstitutional, illegal, and ultra vires the relevant Act? 2. Whether the demand notices dated 06.11.2021, demanding Ground Rent (including GST) and other charges, are liable to be quashed? The petitioner argued that the byelaws and the consequent demand notices were illegal and unconstitutional. The respondents, BBMP and the State of Karnataka, did not appear to have filed any specific arguments in this particular judgment, as the Court relied on previous pronouncements. The Court noted that similar issues had been comprehensively adjudicated and settled by co-ordinate benches in previous writ petitions, specifically referencing "M/s Sapthagiri Shelters" and "Sunderam Shetty" cases.
Sections Cited
Section 45-B of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957, Rule 37-A of the Karnataka Planning Authority Rules, 1965
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 any other appropriate Writ of like nature or direction, declaring the Byelaws No. 3.9 of the Bangalore Mahanagara Palike Building Bye- laws 2003 as unconstitutional, illegal and ultra vires; HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26101 b) Issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ of like nature, or direction, quashing the 2 Demand Notices both dated 06-11-2021 bearing No.BBMP/EoDB/CH/ 22457/21-22 and No.BBMP/EoDB/CH/ 22458/21-22 and issued by Respondent No.1 demanding payment towards Ground Rent (including GST) and other additional charges and levies at ANNEXURE-A & B respectively.
c) Grant such other and further relief/s as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case in the interests 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, HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26101 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. 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 HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26101 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 notices dated 06.11.2021 issued by respondent No.1 as per Annexures-A and B are 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 HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26101 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
NBM 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.