Sri. Sanjeev Shakhapur vs. State Of Karnataka
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Sri. Sanjeev Shakhapur, filed a writ petition challenging various provisions of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961, notifications, circulars, and a government order related to the collection of ground rent, GST on ground rent, betterment charges, and labour welfare cess. The petitioner also challenged a demand notice dated March 31, 2022, issued by the Assistant Director of Town Planning (Yelahanka) for multiple charges including ground rent, GST on ground rent, betterment charges, and various other cesses and surcharges. The petitioner sought quashing of these provisions and the demand notice, and a mandamus to issue a sanction plan without insisting on these charges.
Held
The High Court allowed the writ petition. The Court noted that similar issues raised in the present petition had been comprehensively adjudicated by co-ordinate benches in previous writ petitions, specifically 'M/s Sapthagiri Shelters' and 'Sunderam Shetty'. In 'Sunderam Shetty', levies of Ground Rent, License Fee, Building License Fee, and Scrutiny Fee under relevant bye-laws were declared ultra vires the Act, and related Government Circulars were quashed. In 'M/s Sapthagiri Shelters', Karnataka Act No.01 of 2022 and Karnataka Act No.37 of 2024 were struck down for linking fees to market/guidance value, and related circulars and Clause 3.8 of BBMP Building Bye-laws, 2003, concerning Ground Rent, were declared invalid. Therefore, 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 notice dated 31.03.2022 was set aside. BBMP was directed to issue fresh/modified plans and process the petitioner's application for building license and sanction of the building plan strictly in accordance with law. The issuance of the license and plan was not to be withheld due to BBMP contemplating an appeal, but would be subject to the outcome of any such appeal.
Key Issues
1. Whether Section 18-A(i) and (iv) of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961, as amended by Karnataka Act No. 23 of 2004, are ultra vires the Constitution of India? 2. Whether notification No.UDD 3 TTP 2015 dated 25/02/2020, inserting Rules 37-A and 37-C into the Karnataka Planning Authority Rules, 1965, is illegal and arbitrary? 3. Whether circulars dated 04/09/2015 and 14/8/2020 issued by Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) are illegal and without jurisdiction? 4. Whether the government order dated 18/1/2007 and its corrigendum dated 28/2/2007, mandating upfront collection of labour welfare cess, are illegal? 5. Whether the demand notice dated 31/03/2022 issued by BBMP for various charges including ground rent, GST on ground rent, and betterment charges is illegal and without jurisdiction? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the impugned provisions, notifications, and circulars are illegal, without jurisdiction, and arbitrary, leading to unjustified demands. The petitioner relied on previous judgments of the High Court that had dealt with similar issues. Respondents' arguments: The respondents, including the State of Karnataka and BBMP, did not present specific arguments in the judgment, as the court relied on prior pronouncements.
Sections Cited
Section 18-A, Rule 37-A, Rule 37-C, Clause 3.8 of 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:- “i) Grant an order, direction or writ in the nature of certiorari quashing section 18-A of the Karnataka town & country planning act, 1961 brought into effect by Karnataka act no 23 of 2004 (Karnataka town country planning as contained in ANNEXURE-G1 insofar as section 18-A (i) and (iv) of the Karnataka act No 23 of 2004 is concerned;
ii) Grant an order, direction or writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the notification issued by the 1st respondent bearing No.UDD 3 TTP 2015 dated 25/02/2020 as contained in ANNEXURE-G insofar as the inserted rule 37-A and 37-C is concerned.
iii) Issue a writ or order by way of certiorari quashing the circular dated 04/09/2015, bearing No.Heninayo/JD(N)/M3/PR/320/2015- 16 issued by the respondent No.4 ANNEXURE- E in so far the petitioner is concerned.
iv) Issue a writ or order by way of certiorari quashing the circular dated 14/8/2020 bearing No.He.Ni.ka.pa.ko/PR/320/2020-21 issued by HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26102 the respondent No.4 ANNEXURE- H in so far the petitioner is concerned.
v) Issue a writ or order by way of certiorari quashing the government order bearing No.LD/300/LET/2006 dated 18/1/2007 and the corrigendum order bearing No.LD/300/ LET/2006, dated 28/2/2007 issued by the respondent No.2 mandating upfront collection of labor welfare Cess (ANNEXURE-F) in so for the petitioner is concerned.
vi) Issue a writ or order by way of certiorari quashing the demand notice dated 31/03/2022 bearing No.BBMP/Ad.Com/YLK/ 1254/21-22, issued by the respondent No.5 ANNEXURE- D for demanding in so far it is concerned to ground rent, GST on ground rent, Betterment charges for building, betterment charges for site, excess security deposit, revised license fee, revised scrutiny fee, cess for water supply scheme, surcharge for formation outer ring road, cess for improvement of slum, surcharge for mass rapid transport system, labour cess and etc, as illegal, without juri iction and arbitrary.
vii) Issue a writ or order or direction by way of mandamus directing the respondent No.4 and HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26102 5 BBMP to issue the sanction plan for construction of the building in the schedule property without insisting the ground rent GST on ground rent, betterment charges for building, betterment charges for site, excess security deposit, revised license fee, revised scrutiny fee, cess for water supply scheme, surcharge for formation outer ring road, cess for improvement of slum surcharge for mass rapid transport system, labour cess and etc, and viii) Pass any such other orders as this Hon'ble court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest 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:26102 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. 4. 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. HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26102
In light of the authoritative pronouncements, the present petition does not warrant separate 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 31.03.2022 issued by respondent No.5 as per Annexure-D is hereby set-aside. (iii) Respondent Nos.4 and 5 - BBMP are hereby directed to issue fresh/modified plan as the case may be. (iv) Respondent Nos.4 and 5 - BBMP are hereby directed to forthwith process the petitioner's application seeking building license and sanction of the building plan, strictly in accordance with law. HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26102 (v) It is made clear that the issuance of the building license and approval plan shall not be withheld merely on the 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 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.: 4
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.