R Surendra vs. State Of Karnataka
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioners, R. Surendra and Charan Kumar R., filed a writ petition challenging the constitutionality of Sections 240A and 240C of the BBMP Act, as amended by Karnataka Act No. 37 of 2024. They also challenged Section 18-A of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961, and amendments to Rules 37-A and 37-C of the Karnataka Planning Authority Rules, 1965. Additionally, they sought to quash an Officer Order dated December 9, 2021, and a Demand Note dated September 26, 2024, issued by the Bangalore Bruhath Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) and its Assistant Director, respectively. The Demand Note included charges for ground rent, GST on ground rent, betterment charges, and various other fees.
Held
The High Court held that the present writ petition was substantially covered by a coordinate bench's judgment 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) Acts of 2021 (Karnataka Act No.01 of 2022) and 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, were applicable only to development proposals on plots exceeding 20,000 square meters. It was also held that if fees were previously collected for change of land use or layout plan approval, no further fee should be levied 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 related 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 was set aside, and the BBMP was directed to issue a fresh/modified sanction plan and process the building license application in accordance with law.
Key Issues
1. Whether Sections 240A and 240C inserted by Karnataka Act No. 37 of 2024 into the BBMP Act are unconstitutional? 2. Whether Section 18-A of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961, is unconstitutional? 3. Whether amendments to Rules 37-A and 37-C of the Karnataka Planning Authority Rules, 1965, notified on February 25, 2020, are ultra vires and unconstitutional? 4. Whether the Officer Order dated December 9, 2021, and the Demand Note dated September 26, 2024, issued by the BBMP and its Assistant Director, are illegal, without jurisdiction, and arbitrary? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioners sought to declare the aforementioned sections and rules unconstitutional and the impugned orders and demand notes illegal. They relied on the principles of natural justice and constitutional validity. Revenue/State's Arguments: The judgment does not explicitly record arguments made by 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
This petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:- HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22952 “a) Issue a writ in the nature of a declaration or any other writ, order, direction of similar nature declaring Sections 240A and 240C inserted by way of amendment to the BBMP Act vide Karnataka Act No.37 of 2024 as unconstitutional (Vide Annexure-G);
b) Issue a writ in the nature of declaration or any other similar writ, order or direction declaring that Section 18-A of Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961 as unconstitutional (Vide Annexure-G);
c) Issue a writ in the nature of declaration or any other similar writ, order or direction declaring that amendment to Rule 37-A and 37-C of Karnataka Planning Authority Rules issued by Respondent No.1 vide notification bearing No.UDD 3 TTP 2015 dated 25.02.2020 vide Annexure-E is ultra vires and unconstitutional;
d) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other writ, order, direction of similar nature quashing the Officer Order dated 9.12.2021 produced at Annexure-D as unconstitutional vide HE.NI.NA.YO/PR/461/2021-22 issued by Respondent No. 4; HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22952 e) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other similar order, writ, or direction quashing Demand Note vide L.P No.BBMP/Ad.Com/SUT/ 0998/24-25 having file No.PRJ/6300/24-25 issued by Respondent No. 5 dated 26.09.2024 produced at Annexure-C insofar as it is concerned to ground rent, GST on ground rent, Betterment charges for building, betterment charges for site, excess security deposit, received license fee, revised scrutiny fee, cess for water supply scheme, surcharges for formation outer ring road, cess for improvement of slum, surcharges for mass rapid transport system, labour cess and etc., as illegal, without juri iction and arbitrary;
f) Pass any such other orders as this Hon'ble court deems fit 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, HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22952 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 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 HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22952 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, 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." HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22952
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 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 HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22952 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 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. HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22952
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 26.09.2024 issued by respondent No.5 as per Annexure-C is hereby set-aside. (iii) Respondent No.4 - BBMP hereby directed to issue fresh/modified sanction plan as the case may be. (iv) Respondent No.4 - BBMP is hereby directed to forthwith process the petitioners' 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 HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22952 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.: 29
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.