Sri Sudhakar G S vs. The State Of Karnataka
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioners, Sri Sudhakar G.S. and others, filed a writ petition challenging a demand notice dated March 28, 2024, issued by the Joint Director, Town Planning South (Respondent No. 4). They sought to quash this notice, alleging it was arbitrary, unconstitutional, and beyond jurisdiction. They also sought a direction for the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) and the Joint Director to issue a revised demand notice with reduced charges for their commercial/residential building, and to refrain from insisting on various fees including Ground Rent, GST on Road Rent, License Fee, Scrutiny Fee, Betterment Charges, Security Deposit, Lake Rejuvenation Fee, Cess for Water Supply Scheme, Surcharge for Outer Ring Road, Cess for Slum Improvement, Surcharge for Mass Rapid Transport System, and Labour Cess. The petitioners are represented by Sri Shakunthala Shetty, Advocate, and the respondents by Sri H.K. Kenchegowda, AGA, and Sri K.B. Monesh Kumar, Advocate.
Held
The Court held that the present writ petition was substantially covered and decided by an authoritative pronouncement of a coordinate bench in a similar matter. The coordinate bench had quashed and set aside the Karnataka Municipal Corporations and Certain Other Law (Amendment) Acts of 2021 (Karnataka Act No.01 of 2022) and 2023 (Karnataka Act No.37 of 2024). 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, were applicable only to development plans for plots exceeding 20,000 square meters. The Court also declared that if fees were previously collected for change of land use or layout plan approval, no further fee should be collected for subsequent development plans. The linkage of levies to market or guidance value under Section 45-B of the Karnataka Stamp Act was declared illegal, and consequently, all impugned circulars and demand notices were quashed. Clause 3.8 of the BBMP Building Bye-laws, 2003, concerning 'Ground Rent', was also struck down. The Court found that the controversy in the present petition no longer survived independently and was squarely covered by the binding judgment. Therefore, the writ petition was liable to be allowed, aligning with the operative portion of the precedent judgment.
Key Issues
1. Whether the demand notice dated March 28, 2024, issued by the Joint Director, Town Planning South, is arbitrary, unconstitutional, and beyond jurisdiction, warranting quashing under Section 226 of the Constitution of India. 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to a direction for the issuance of a revised demand notice with reduced charges, and to be exempted from paying specific fees such as Ground Rent, GST on Road Rent, License Fee, Scrutiny Fee, Betterment Charges, Security Deposit, Lake Rejuvenation Fee, Cess for Water Supply Scheme, Surcharge for Outer Ring Road, Cess for Improvement of Slum, Surcharge for Mass Rapid Transport System, and Labour Cess, based on the principles of law laid down by a coordinate bench. Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioners argued that the demand notice was illegal and sought its quashing. They relied on a coordinate bench's judgment that had set aside the Karnataka Municipal Corporations and Certain Other Law (Amendment) Acts of 2021 and 2023, and declared certain provisions and fees illegal. They contended that their case was covered by this precedent. Revenue/State's Arguments: The judgment does not explicitly record arguments from the respondents. However, it notes that the issue was dealt with by a coordinate bench in a reported judgment.
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
The captioned petition is filed seeking following reliefs:
“a) To issue a Writ of Certiorari being aggrieved by the alleged Demand Notice dated 28.03.2024 bearing LP No: BBMP/Ad.Com./BMH/1527/23-24 under Project No.PRJ/8687/23-24 issued is arbitrary, unconstitutional and beyond the juri iction, hence is illegal and needs to be quashed/set aside Annexure-C.
b) To issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other Writ, Order or direction to the respondent no.3 and 4 for issuing new and revised demand notice with reduced charges for the commercial/residential building.
c) on the scheduled property without insisting the Ground Rent, GST on Road Rent, License Fee, Scrutiny Fee, Betterment Charges for Building, Security Deposit, Lake Rejuvenation Fee, Cess for Water Supply Scheme, Surcharge for formation of Outer Ring Road, Cess for Improvement of Slum and Surcharge for Mass Rapid Transport System, Labour Cess and etc.
d) Further be pleased to grant any other relief or reliefs that this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances and facts of the case including the cost of this proceedings, in the interest of justice and equity.” HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23208
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 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 HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23208 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’ 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, HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23208 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."
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 HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23208 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 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 HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23208 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.
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 28.03.2024 issued by respondent No.4 as per Annexure-C is hereby set-aside.
(iii) Respondent- BBMP hereby directed to issue fresh/modified plan as the case may be.
(iv) Respondent- BBMP is hereby directed to forthwith process the petitioner's HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23208 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 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
MBM List No.: 2 Sl No.: 49
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.