Total Environment Living Spaces Private Limited vs. The State Of Karnataka
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Total Environment Living Spaces Private Limited, filed a writ petition challenging a demand notice dated 29.08.2020 issued by the Joint Director, Building Licence Cell (South), Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP). The demand included Rs. 26,55,378/- towards ground rent and GST, Rs. 22,50,320/- as license fee, and Rs. 1,12,516/- as scrutiny fee. The petitioner sought to quash this demand and declare Bye-Law No. 3.9 of the Building Bye-Laws-2003, issued under Section 428 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, 1976, as ultra vires. The court noted that similar issues had been adjudicated by coordinate benches in previous cases.
Held
The Court held that the issues raised in the present writ petition were squarely covered by previous binding decisions of coordinate benches. Specifically, in the cases of 'M/s Sapthagiri Shelters' and '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. Government Circulars dated 04.09.2015, 27.01.2017, and 30.03.2017 were quashed. Furthermore, Karnataka Act No. 01 of 2022 and Karnataka Act No. 37 of 2024 were struck down for illegally linking fees to market/guidance values. Clause 3.8 of the BBMP Building Bye-laws, 2003, pertaining to Ground Rent, was also declared invalid. Consequently, the impugned demand notice was set aside. The BBMP was directed to issue a Partial Occupancy Certificate in accordance with law, subject to the outcome of any appeal the BBMP might file.
Key Issues
1. Whether the demand for ground rent, GST, license fee, and scrutiny fee, as per the impugned notice dated 29.08.2020, is legally sustainable, considering previous judgments of this Court? (Question of law) 2. Whether Bye-Law No. 3.9 of the Building Bye-Laws-2003, issued under Section 428 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, 1976, is ultra vires, unconstitutional, arbitrary, and illegal? (Question of law) Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the demand notice was illegal and sought to quash it. They also argued that Bye-Law No. 3.9 was unconstitutional and ultra vires. The petitioner relied on previous judgments of coordinate benches of the High Court that had dealt with similar levies and bye-laws. Revenue/State's arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondents (State of Karnataka and BBMP). However, the court's decision implies that the respondents' actions were based on the bye-laws and circulars that were subsequently set aside in prior judgments.
Sections Cited
Section 428, Bye-Law No. 3.9, Bye-Law No. 3.8, Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, 1976, Karnataka Act No.01 of 2022, Karnataka Act No.37 of 2024, Rule 37-A of the Karnataka Planning Authority Rules, 1965, Section 45-B of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957
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:- “(i) Issue a writ of certiorari or similar writ or order of direction to quash the BBMP/ADDL.Dir/JD South/LP/0423/2012-13 dated: 29-08-2020 at Annexure-B issued by the 3rd Respondent in so far as the demand for sum of Rs.26,55,378/- towards ground HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26100 rent and GST, license fee of Rs.22,50, 320/- and Rs.1,12,516/- of scrutiny fee.
(ii) Issue writ of certiorari /Mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction declaring that Bye-Law no.3.9 of Building Bye Laws-2003 issued in pursuance of Section 428 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, 1976 as ultravires, unconstitutional, arbitrary and illegal.
(iii) 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, HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26100 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:26100 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 29.08.2020 issued by respondent No.3 as per Annexure-B is hereby set-aside.
(iii) Respondent Nos.2 and 3 - BBMP are hereby directed to issue Partial Occupancy Certificate in accordance with law in compliance of the construction strictly adhering to the approved building plan.
(iv) Respondent Nos.2 and 3 - BBMP are directed to forthwith process the petitioner’s application seeking Partial Occupancy Certificate, strictly in accordance with law. HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26100 (v) It is made clear that the issuance of the Partial Occupancy Certificate shall not be withheld merely on the ground that the BBMP is contemplating to file an appeal against the reported judgment.
(vi) If the Partial Occupancy Certificate is 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.: 2
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.