Mrs B V Jayalakshmi vs. State Of Karnataka
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioners, represented by their General Power of Attorney holder M/s. M.N. Landmark, filed a writ petition challenging the Karnataka Municipal Corporations and Certain Other Law (Amendment) Act, 2021 (Act No.1/2022), an office order, and a fee demand notice issued by the Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike (BBMP). The demand notice, dated July 10, 2024, issued by the Joint Director, Town Planning (South), BBMP, included demands for Ground Rent, GST at 18%, Scrutiny fee, and License fee. The petitioners sought to quash these actions as ultra vires and unconstitutional. The court noted that the core issue was substantially covered by a coordinate bench's judgment in connected matters.
Held
The Court held that the present writ petition was substantially covered by a coordinate bench's judgment in connected matters. Consequently, the Court followed the operative portion of that judgment. The Karnataka Municipal Corporations and Certain Other Law (Amendment) Act, 2021 (Karnataka Act No.01 of 2022) and the Karnataka Municipal Corporations and Certain Other Law (Amendment) Act, 2023 (Karnataka Act No.37 of 2024) were quashed and set aside. It was declared that Section 18-A of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961, read with Rules 37-A and 37-C of the Karnataka Planning Authority Rules, 1965, apply only to development plans for plots exceeding 20,000 square meters. The Court also declared that if fees were already collected for change of land use or layout plan approval, no further fee should be collected for subsequent development plans. The linkage of fees to market or guidance value under Section 45-B of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957, was declared illegal. Clause 3.8 of the BBMP Building Bye-laws, 2003, concerning 'Ground Rent', was also quashed. As a result, the impugned demand notice dated July 10, 2024, was set aside. The BBMP was directed to issue Occupancy Certificates in accordance with law, strictly adhering to approved building plans, and to process applications for occupancy certificates forthwith. The issuance of occupancy certificates 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 the Karnataka Municipal Corporations and Certain Other Law (Amendment) Act, 2021 (Karnataka Act No.01 of 2022) and the Karnataka Municipal Corporations and Certain Other Law (Amendment) Act, 2023 (Karnataka Act No.37 of 2024) are ultra vires and unconstitutional, as contended by the petitioners. The revenue did not record specific arguments on this point, but the court relied on a prior judgment. 2. Whether the provisions of Section 18-A of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961, read with Rules 37-A and 37-C of the Karnataka Planning Authority Rules, 1965, are applicable only to development plans for plots exceeding 20,000 square meters, and not for smaller plots, as argued by the petitioners. The revenue's stance was not explicitly recorded, but the court followed the precedent. 3. Whether the linkage of fees leviable under Rule 37-A of the Karnataka Planning Authority Rules, 1965, to the market value or guidance value under Section 45-B of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957, is illegal, as asserted by the petitioners. The revenue's arguments were not detailed. 4. Whether Clause 3.8 of the Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Building Bye-laws, 2003, providing for 'Ground Rent', is illegal, as argued by the petitioners. The revenue's position was not specified. 5. Whether the impugned demand notice dated July 10, 2024, issued by the BBMP, including demands for Ground Rent, GST, Scrutiny fee, and License fee, is liable to be quashed.
Sections Cited
Section 18-A, Rule 37-A, Rule 37-C, Section 45-B, Clause 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:- “i) issue a writ of certiorari or similar writ or order or direction to quash the Karnataka Municipal Corporations and Certain Other Law (Amendment) Act, 2021 Act No.1/2022 dated 13.01.2022 enacted by the second respondent published through notification bearing No.DPAL 50 SHASANA 2021 gazetted on 13.01.2022 at Annexure-P declaring it to be ultravires and unconstitutional, it is concerned to petitioner herein.
ii) issue writ of certiorari or similar writ or order or direction to quash the Office Order bearing HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24756 No.ADTP/PR/461/2021-22 dated 09.03.2022 issued by the third respondent at Annexure-Q, it is concerned to petitioner herein.
iii) issue a writ of certiorari or similar writ or order or direction to quash the fee demand notice bearing No.BBMP/Addl.Dir/JD South/0253/17-18 dated 10.07.2024 at Annexure-L issued by the Respondent No.4 in so far as demand towards Ground Rent of Rs.96,42,386/-, GST at 18% in a sum of Rs.17,35,630/-, Scrutiny fee of Rs.7,49,964/-, License fee of Rs.96,42,386/-, are concerned.
iv) issue any other appropriate writ or order or direction to the respondents deemed fit in the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity.”
It is brought to the notice of this Court that across the Bar, the issue is dealt by the Co-ordinate Bench in the reported judgment in W.P.No.23086/2022 and connected matters. The Co-ordinate Bench, while deciding the issue, has set-aside the Karnataka Municipal Corporations and Certain Other Law (Amendment) Act, 2021 (Karnataka Act No.01 of 2022) and the Karnataka HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24756 Municipal Corporations and Certain Other Law (Amendment) Act, 2023, (Karnataka Act No.37 of 2024). Therefore, this Court deems it fit to cull out the operative portion of the order, which reads as under; "ORDER (i) The writ petitions are partly allowed. (ii) The Karnataka Municipal Corporations and Certain Other Law (Amendment) Act, 2021 (Karnataka Act No.01 of 2022), is hereby quashed and set aside. (iii) The Karnataka Municipal Corporations and Certain Other Law (Amendment) Act, 2023, (Karnataka Act No.37 of 2024), is hereby quashed and set aside. (iv) It is hereby declared that the provisions contained in Section 18-A of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961, read with Rules 37-A and 37-C of the Karnataka Planning Authority Rules, 1965, are applicable only in respect of ‘Development Plan’ containing the proposal for construction on plots measuring more than 20,000 square meters in extent and not in respect of plots measuring less than 20,000 square meters. (v) It is hereby declared that if fee has been earlier collected for change of land use or while approving a layout plan, fee shall not be collected for subsequent ‘Development Plan’ in terms of the ‘Note’ HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24756 found below TABLE I of Rule 37-A of the Karnataka Planning Authority Rules, 1965. (vi) It is hereby declared that the linking of the fee leviable under Rule 37-A of the Karnataka Planning Authority Rules, 1965, to the ‘market value’ or ‘guidance value’ as determined under Section 45-B of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957, is illegal. However, liberty is reserved to the respondent-State Government and the BBMP to re-fix a standard after collecting empherical data. (vii) Consequently, all the impugned Circulars which seek to give effect to the Rules 37-A and 37-C of the Karnataka Planning Authority Rules, 1965, are hereby quashed and set aside. (viii) It is hereby declared that Clause 3.8 of the Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Building Bye- laws, 2003, providing for ‘Ground Rent’, is illegal and are accordingly quashed and set aside. (ix) Consequently, all the impugned Demand Notices raised by the respondent-BBMP, in respect of the writ petitioners herein are also quashed and set aside. It would be advisable that the BBMP may come out with a scheme for ‘One Time Settlement’ and settle the levy and collect the fee generally acceptable to the citizens of Bengaluru. This would also augment the present situation." HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24756
In the present writ petition, the core issue raised stands substantially covered and decided by the authoritative pronouncement of the coordinate bench, wherein the writ petitions were partly allowed and several consequential reliefs were granted. The Hon’ble Court, in unequivocal terms, quashed and set aside the Karnataka Municipal Corporations and Certain Other Law (Amendment) Acts of 2021 and 2023 (Karnataka Act Nos.01 of 2022 and 37 of 2024 respectively).
The Court further declared that the provisions under Section 18-A of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961, read with Rules 37-A and 37-C of the Karnataka Planning Authority Rules, 1965, are applicable only to development proposals concerning plots exceeding 20,000 square meters, and not to smaller plots. Importantly, it was also held that if a fee has been previously collected for change of land use or approval of layout plan, no further fee shall be levied for subsequent HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24756 development plans, in view of the explanatory 'Note' to Table I of Rule 37-A.
The Court declared illegal the linkage of such levies to market or guidance value under Section 45-B of the Karnataka Stamp Act, and consequently, quashed all Circulars and demand notices issued to give effect to such unlawful interpretations. Clause 3.8 of the BBMP Building Bye-laws, 2003, imposing 'Ground Rent', was also struck down.
In view of these comprehensive declarations and findings, it is submitted that the controversy raised in the present writ petition no longer survives for adjudication independently, as it is squarely covered by the binding judgment of the coordinate bench. In the light of the law laid down in the reported judgment substantially covering the issue, which is raised in the captioned writ petition, the writ petition is liable to be allowed strictly aligning to the operative portion of the said writ petition. HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24756
In view of the above, this Court proceeds to pass the following; ORDER (i) The writ petition is allowed. (ii) The impugned demand notice dated 10.07.2024 issued by respondent No.4 as per Annexure-L is hereby set-aside. (iii) Respondent Nos.3 and 4 - BBMP are hereby directed to issue Occupancy Certificate in accordance with law in compliance of the construction strictly adhering to the approved building plan. (iv) Respondent Nos.3 and 4 - BBMP are hereby directed to forthwith process the petitioners' application seeking occupancy certificate, strictly in accordance with law. (v) It is made clear that the issuance of the occupancy certificate shall not be withheld merely on the ground that the BBMP is contemplating to file an appeal against the reported judgment. HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24756 (vi) If the occupancy certificate is issued, the same shall be subjected to the outcome of any appeal that may be filed by the BBMP against the judgment. Pending applications, if any, are also disposed off. (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE
NBM List No.: 2 Sl No.: 18
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.