M/S V2 Holdings Housing Development PVT LTD vs. The State Of Karnataka
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioners, M/s V2 Holdings Housing Development Pvt. Ltd. and Sri Priya Krishna, filed a writ petition challenging the Karnataka Municipal Corporations and Certain Other Law (Amendment) Act, 2021 (Karnataka Act No.01 of 2022), and various other notifications, circulars, and office orders issued by the Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) and the State of Karnataka. The petitioners sought to declare these legislative amendments and administrative actions as ultra vires the Constitution and in violation of previous court decisions. Specifically, they challenged the imposition of charges like Ground rent, GST on Ground rent, License fee, scrutiny fee, betterment charges, security deposit, lake rejuvenation fee, and various cesses and surcharges, as well as the demand notice issued by the BBMP for these amounts. The core of the petition revolved around the legality of these levies and their impact on the sanction of building plans and issuance of licenses.
Held
The High Court held that the issues raised in the present writ petition were squarely covered by previous binding decisions of co-ordinate benches. Specifically, in the cases of 'Sunderam Shetty' and 'M/s Sapthagiri Shelters', similar levies and legislative amendments were examined. In 'Sunderam Shetty', the levies of Ground Rent, License Fee, Building License Fee, and Scrutiny Fee under the relevant bye-laws were declared ultra vires the Act, and certain 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 illegally linking fees to market/guidance value. Clause 3.8 of the BBMP Building Bye-laws, 2003, pertaining to Ground Rent, was also declared invalid. Consequently, the present petition did not warrant separate adjudication. The Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the impugned demand notice, and directed the BBMP to issue a fresh/modified plan and process the petitioner's application for a building license and sanction of the building plan strictly in accordance with law. It was clarified that the issuance of the license and plan should not 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 in its application to the petitioners? 2. Whether the aforementioned Amendment Act is in violation or contrary to the decision of this Hon'ble Court in W.P No.4601/2020? 3. Whether the Office Order No.HaNiNaYo/PR/461/2021-22 dated 09/03/2022 issued by Respondent No.3 is liable to be quashed? 4. Whether Section 18-A of the Karnataka Town & Country Planning Act, 1961, specifically Sections 18-A(i) and (iv), brought into effect by Karnataka Act No.23 of 2004, is liable to be quashed? 5. Whether the Notification issued by the 1st Respondent bearing No.UDD 3 TTP 2015 dated 25/02/2020, insofar as it inserted Rule 37-A and 37-C, is liable to be quashed? 6. Whether the circular dated 14/08/2020, bearing No.He.Ni.Ka.Pa.Ko/P.R/320/2020-21, issued by Respondent No.3 is liable to be quashed? 7. Whether the Notification issued by the 1st Respondent bearing No.UDD 23 TTP 2020 (E) dated 21/06/2021, insofar as it inserted Rule 37-A and 37-C, is liable to be quashed? 8. Whether the circular dated 24/06/2021, bearing No.He.Ni.Na.Yo/P.R/320/2020-21, issued by Respondent No.3 is liable to be quashed? 9. Whether the demand notice dated Nil, bearing No.BBMP/Addl.Dir/JDSOUTH/0074/23-24, issued by Respondent No.4, demanding various charges including Ground rent, GST on Ground rent, License fee, scrutiny fee, etc., is illegal, without jurisdiction, and arbitrary? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioners argued that the impugned Act, notifications, circulars, and demand notice were ultra vires the Constitution and contrary to previous judgments of the High Court. They sought to quash these actions and compel the BBMP to issue the sanction plan and building license without insisting on the disputed charges. Respondents' Arguments: The judgment does not record specific arguments from the respondents. However, it notes that the issues raised were comprehensively adjudicated by co-ordinate benches in previous cases.
Sections Cited
Section 18-A, Rule 37-A, Rule 37-C
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: “1) 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/50/SHASANA/2021 notified on 13/01/2022 (ANNEXURE-R) as being ultra vires the Constitution in so far, the Petitioner is concerned in so far, the Petitioner is concerned.
ii) To declare that Karnataka Municipal Corporations and Certain Other Law (Amendment) Act, 2021 (Karnataka Act No.01 of 2022) bearing No.DPAL/50/SHASANA/2021 notified on 13/01/2022 (ΑNNEXURE-R) is in violation/contrary to the decision of this Hon'ble Court in W.P No.4601/2020 (LB-BMP) which is at Annexure-P.
iii) 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.3 as contained in (ANNEXURE-S) in so far, the Petitioner is concerned.
iv) 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 (Amendment) Act, 1998) as contained in HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23171 (ANNEXURE-J) insofar as Section 18-A(i) and (iv) of the Karnataka Act No.23 of 2004 is concerned;
v) 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-H) insofar as the inserted Rule 37-A and 37-C is concerned;
vi) issue a writ or order by way of certiorari quashing the circular dated 14/08/2020, bearing No.He.Ni.Ka.Pa.Ko/P.R/320/2020-21 issued by the Respondent No.3 (Annexure-K) in so far the Petitioner is concerned.
vii) Grant an order, direction or writ in the nature of Certiorari quashing the Notification issued by the 1st Respondent bearing No.UDD 23 TTP 2020 (E) dated 21/06/2021 as contained in (ANNEXURE-L) insofar as the inserted Rule 37-A and 37-C is concerned;
viii) issue a writ or order by way of certiorari quashing the circular dated 24/06/2021, bearing No.He.Ni.Na.Yo/P.R/320/2020-21 issued by the Respondent No.3 (Annexure-M) in so far the Petitioner is concerned.
ix) issue a writ or order by way of certiorari quashing the demand notice dated Nil, bearing No.BBMP/AddI.Dir/JDSOUTH/0074/23-24, issued by the Respondent No.4 (Annexure-D) for demanding in so far it is concerned to Ground rent, GST on Ground rent, HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23171 License fee, scrutiny fee, Betterment charges for building, security deposit, Lake Rejuvenation 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.
x) Issue a writ or order or direction by way of mandamus directing the Respondent No.3 and 4 BBMP to issue the sanction plan for construction of the residential apartment building in the Schedule Property without insisting the Ground rent, GST on Ground rent, License fee, scrutiny fee, Betterment charges for building, security deposit, Lake Rejuvenation fee, Cess for water supply scheme, Surcharge for formation outer ring road, Cess for improvement of slum and Surcharge for Mass Rapid Transport System, Labour cess and xi) pass any such other order(s) as this Hon'ble Court deems fit 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. HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23171
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- 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:23171
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 NIL bearing No. BBMP/Addl.Dir /JDSOUTH/0074/23-24 issued by respondent No.4 as per Annexure-D is hereby set-aside.
(iii) Respondent-BBMP is hereby directed to issue fresh/modified plan as the case may be.
(iv) Respondent-BBMP is 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:23171 (v) It is made clear that the issuance of the building license and approval of the 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 subject to the outcome of any appeal that may be filed by the BBMP against the said judgment. (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE
MBM List No.: 2 Sl No.: 12
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.