Smt D Vijayalakshmi vs. State Of Karnataka
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioners, represented by M/s. Surya Shakti Greenlands Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Keerthi Estates Pvt. Ltd., filed a writ petition challenging the Karnataka Municipal Corporations and Certain Other Law (Amendment) Act, 2021 (Act No.1/2022), an office order dated March 9, 2022, and a demand notice dated July 23, 2024, issued by the Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike (BBMP). The demand notice included charges for Ground Rent, GST, license fee, and scrutiny fee. The petitioners sought to declare the amendment act unconstitutional and ultra vires, and to quash the office order and the demand notice, particularly the amounts related to GST and other charges.
Held
The High Court, in the present writ petition, followed the decision of a coordinate bench in W.P.No.23086/2022 and connected matters. The coordinate bench had partly allowed the writ petitions, quashing and setting 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). The Court 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 proposals for plots exceeding 20,000 square meters. It was also held that no further fee should be collected for subsequent development plans if fees were already paid for change of land use or layout plan approval. 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. Based on this precedent, the present writ petition was allowed, the impugned demand notice dated July 23, 2024, was set aside, and the BBMP was directed to issue an Occupancy Certificate in accordance with law, subject to the outcome of any appeal.
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, particularly concerning the petitioners' situation? 2. Whether 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 to plots measuring less than 20,000 square meters? 3. Whether fee can be collected for a subsequent 'Development Plan' if fee has already been collected for change of land use or approval of a layout plan? 4. Whether the linking of 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 legal? 5. Whether Clause 3.8 of the Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Building Bye-laws, 2003, providing for 'Ground Rent', is illegal? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioners sought to quash the amendment acts and the demand notice, arguing they were unconstitutional and ultra vires. They relied on a coordinate bench's decision in W.P.No.23086/2022 and connected matters. Revenue/State's arguments: The judgment does not record specific arguments from the respondents. However, it notes that the issue was dealt with by a coordinate bench.
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:
“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 2nd respondent published through notification bearing No.DPAL 50 SHASANA 2021 gazetted on 13.01.2022 at Annexure-J declaring it to be ultravires and unconstitutional, in so for as petitioner is concerned.
ii) issue writ of certiorari or similar writ or order or direction to quash the Office Order bearing No.ADTP/PR/461/2021-22 dated 09.03.2022 issued by the third respondent at Annexure -K;
iii) issue a writ of certiorari or similar writ or order or direction to quash the demand notice bearing No.BBMP/Addl.COM/MDP/0289/2012-13 dated 23.07.2024 at Annexure-F issued by the Respondent No.4 in so far as demand towards Ground Rent in a sum of Rs.1,78,06,450/- GST of Rs.32,05,161/-, license fee of Rs.43,04,672/- and scrutiny fee of Rs.3,30,949/- are concerned;
iv) issue any other appropriate writ or order or direction to the respondents deemed fit in the HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23195 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 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. HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23195 (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’ 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. HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23195 (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."
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). HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23195
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 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. HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23195
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.
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 23.07.2024 issued by respondent No.4 as per Annexure-F is hereby set-aside.
(iii) Respondent - BBMP is hereby directed to issue Occupancy Certificate in accordance with law in compliance of the HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23195 construction strictly adhering to the approved building plan.
(iv) Respondent- BBMP is 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.
(vi) If the occupancy certificate 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.: 36
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.