Sri R Narayana Swamy vs. The State Of Karnataka
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioners, represented by their GPA holder M/s. Trishul Developers, filed a writ petition challenging the Karnataka Municipal Corporations and Certain Other Law (Amendment) Act, 2021 (Karnataka Act No.01 of 2022). They also sought to quash an office order dated 09/03/2022 issued by the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) and a demand notice dated 06/05/2024 from the Joint Director, Town and Country Planning (North), BBMP. The demand notice included charges for ground rent with GST, difference in FAR area, license fee, and scrutiny fee. The petitioners sought a declaration that the amendment act is ultra vires, the office order and demand notice be quashed, and an occupancy certificate be issued without insisting on the disputed fees. They also contended that fees levied based on the guidance value of the property are unconstitutional.
Held
The Court held that the issues raised in the present writ petition are squarely covered by previous binding decisions of coordinate benches. Specifically, in the case of 'M/s Sapthagiri Shelters' and connected matters, a coordinate bench had struck down Karnataka Act No.01 of 2022 and Karnataka Act No.37 of 2024, finding the linking of 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, to be illegal. That decision also quashed related circulars and declared Clause 3.8 of the BBMP Building Bye-laws, 2003, pertaining to Ground Rent, as invalid. Similarly, in 'Sunderam Shetty' and connected cases, levies of Ground Rent, License Fee, Building License Fee, and Scrutiny Fee under relevant bye-laws were declared ultra vires the Act, and government circulars were quashed. 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 writ petitions. The impugned demand notice was set aside, and the BBMP was directed to issue an Occupancy Certificate in accordance with law, strictly adhering to the approved building plan, and to process the application for occupancy certificate without delay. The issuance of the occupancy certificate was not to be withheld due to any contemplated appeal by the BBMP, but would be subject to the outcome of any such appeal.
Key Issues
1. Whether the Karnataka Municipal Corporations and Certain Other Law (Amendment) Act, 2021 (Karnataka Act No.01 of 2022) is ultra vires the Constitution of India? 2. Whether the office order dated 09/03/2022 issued by Respondent No.2 is liable to be quashed? 3. Whether the demand notice dated 06/05/2024, demanding payment of ground rent with 18% GST, difference in FAR area, license fee, and scrutiny fee, is valid? 4. Whether fees levied on the basis of the guidance value of the property are unconstitutional? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioners argued that the entire Karnataka Municipal Corporations and Certain Other Law (Amendment) Act, 2021, is ultra vires the Constitution. They also contended that the fees demanded in the notice, including ground rent with GST, difference in FAR area, license fee, and scrutiny fee, are illegal and unconstitutional, particularly those linked to the guidance value of the property. They relied on previous judgments of coordinate benches of the High Court. Revenue/State's Arguments: The judgment does not record specific arguments made by the respondents. However, the respondents are the State of Karnataka and BBMP authorities who issued the impugned orders and notices.
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
The captioned petition is filed seeking following reliefs: “a. Grant an order declaring that the entire Karnataka Municipal Corporations and Certain Other Law (Amendment) Act, 2021 (Karnataka Act No.01 of 2022) bearing No.DPAL 50SHASANA, 2021 notified on 13/01/2022 by the Respondent No.1 as contained in ANNEXURE-J as being ultra vires the Constitution of India;
b. grant an order, direction or writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the Office Order No.HaNiNaYo/PR/461/2021-22 dated 09/03/2022 issued by Respondent No.2 as contained in ANNEXURE-L;
c. grant an order, direction or writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned Demand Notice bearing No.BBMP/Addl.Dir/JDNORTH/LP/0009/2010-11 dated 06/05/2024 issued by the Respondent No.3 insofar as it demands the payment of Ground rent with 18% GST, Difference in FAR Area, License Fee and Scrutiny fee and payment of already stayed ground rent, as contained in ANNEXURE-P;
d. grant an order, direction or writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent No.2 to issue Occupancy Certificate to the Petitioners without insistence of the fees specified at the amounts contained HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23172 in Sl. No.1 (i.e., ground rent), Sl. No.2 (i.e., Difference in FAR Area) Sl. No.3 (i.e., Licence Fee) Sl. No.4 (i.e., Scrutiny fee) of Table above, demand notice bearing No.BBMP/Addl.-Dir/JDNORTH/LP/0009/2010-11 dated 06/05/2024 are concerned as contained in ANNEXURE-P issued by Respondent No.3. e. grant an order, direction or declare that the various fees levied on the basis of the guidance value of the property are all bad in law and unconstitutional; and f. grant such other relief or reliefs as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit to grant, including cost of the Petitioners, 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 under the relevant bye- HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23172 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.
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. HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23172
Accordingly, this Court proceeds to pass the following: ORDER (i) The writ petition is allowed.
(ii) The impugned demand notice dated 06- 05-2024 issued by respondent No.3 as per Annexure-P is hereby set-aside.
(iii) Respondent - BBMP is hereby directed to issue Occupancy Certificate in accordance with law in compliance of the construction strictly adhering to the approved building plan.
(iv) Respondent-BBMP are hereby directed to forthwith process the petitioner’s 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:23172 (vi) If the 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
MBM List No.: 2 Sl No.: 13
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.