Sri Giridhar S Tirumale vs. The Bruhath Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioners, Sri. Giridhar S. Tirumale and Sri. Tirumale Seshadri Sridhar, filed a writ petition challenging two demand notices dated March 18, 2025, and February 24, 2025, issued by the Assistant Director, Town Planning, South Zone, Bruhath Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP). These notices demanded payment towards Ground Rent (including GST) and Labour Cess, along with other additional charges and levies. The petitioners sought to quash these demand notices. The respondents are the BBMP, the State of Karnataka through its Urban Development Department, and the Assistant Director, Town Planning.
Held
The Court held that the issues raised in the present writ petition are squarely covered by the binding decisions in W.P.No.23086/2022 (M/s Sapthagiri Shelters) and W.P.No.36017/2018 (Sunderam Shetty) and connected matters. In the Sunderam Shetty case, a Co-ordinate Bench had 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 specific government circulars. Similarly, in the M/s Sapthagiri Shelters case, a Co-ordinate Bench struck down Karnataka Act No.01 of 2022 and Karnataka Act No.37 of 2024, holding the linking of fees to market/guidance value as illegal, and also quashed related circulars and declared Clause 3.8 of the BBMP Building Bye-laws, 2003, pertaining to Ground Rent, as invalid. Consequently, the present petition did not warrant separate adjudication and was liable to be allowed in terms of the operative directions issued in the aforesaid writ petitions. The impugned demand notices were set aside, and the BBMP was directed to issue a fresh/modified plan and process the petitioners' application for a building license 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 an appeal.
Key Issues
1. Whether the demand notices dated March 18, 2025, and February 24, 2025, issued by the Assistant Director, Town Planning, BBMP, demanding payment towards Ground Rent (including GST) and Labour Cess, are liable to be quashed? The petitioners argued that the issues raised in their writ petition are squarely covered by previous binding decisions of the High Court of Karnataka in W.P.No.23086/2022 (M/s Sapthagiri Shelters) and W.P.No.36017/2018 (Sunderam Shetty) and connected matters. They contended that these prior judgments had already set aside the relevant bye-laws and government circulars under which the impugned demands were raised. The respondents did not record any specific arguments in the judgment. However, the court's decision implies that the respondents' actions were based on bye-laws and circulars that were previously declared invalid.
Sections Cited
Section 45-B of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957, Rule 37-A of the Karnataka Planning Authority Rules, 1965, Clause 3.8 of the BBMP Building Bye-laws, 2003
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, quashing the Demand Notice dated 18-03- 2025 bearing Nos.BBMP/EoDB/CH/49556/24- HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26105 25 (ANNEXURE-A) and Demand Notice dated 24-02-2025 bearing BBMP/EoDB/CH/49557/ 24-25 (ANNEXURE-B), both issued by the Respondent No.3 demanding payment towards Ground Rent (including GST) and Labour cess amount and other additional charges and levies at ANNEXURE-A & B.
b) Grant such other and further relief/s as this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the facts and 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 HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26105 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:26105 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 18.03.2025 issued by respondent No.3 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 petitioners' 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:26105 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.: 34
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.