Mr J Sharjeel vs. State Of Karnataka
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioners, Mr. J. Sharjeel and Mr. J. Shamoeel, filed a writ petition challenging an undated demand notice issued by the Assistant Director, Town Planning, Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike (BBMP). The notice, bearing project number PRJ/4784/24-25, demanded various charges including Ground Rent, GST on Ground Rent, License Fee, Scrutiny Fee, Betterment Charges, Security Deposit, Lake Rejuvenation Fee, and several other cesses and surcharges. The petitioners sought to quash these demands, arguing they were illegal, without jurisdiction, and arbitrary. They also sought a direction for the BBMP to issue a Sanction Plan for their residential apartment building.
Held
The Court held that the issues raised in the present writ petition are squarely covered by the binding decisions of coordinate benches in W.P.No.23086/2022 (M/s Sapthagiri Shelters) and W.P.No.36017/2018 (Sunderam Shetty). In Sunderam Shetty, levies of Ground Rent, License Fee, Building License Fee, and Scrutiny Fee under relevant bye-laws were declared ultra vires the Act and related government circulars were quashed. Similarly, in M/s Sapthagiri Shelters, Karnataka Act No.01 of 2022 and Karnataka Act No.37 of 2024 were struck down for linking fees to market/guidance value, and Clause 3.8 of the BBMP Building Bye-laws, 2003, pertaining to Ground Rent, was declared invalid. Consequently, the present petition did not warrant separate adjudication and was liable to be allowed. The impugned demand notice was set aside, and the BBMP was directed to issue a fresh/modified plan and process the application for a building license strictly in accordance with law. The issuance of the license and plan was to be subject to the outcome of any appeal filed by the BBMP.
Key Issues
1. Whether the demand notice issued by the third respondent, demanding Ground Rent, GST on Ground Rent, License Fee, Scrutiny Fee, Betterment Charges, 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, and Labour Cess, is illegal, without jurisdiction, and arbitrary, thereby warranting quashing. Petitioner's Argument: The petitioners argued that the demand notice was illegal and arbitrary, seeking to quash the specified charges. They relied on previous judgments by coordinate benches of the High Court. Revenue/State's Argument: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondents. However, it notes that the issues raised are squarely covered by prior pronouncements.
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
This petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:-
“a. Issue a Writ in the nature of Certiorari quashing the undated Demand Notice issued by Third the Respondent, in LP. HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22994 No.BBMP/Ad.Com/EST/0547/2024-25, bearing Project No.PRJ/4784/24-25 vide Annexure-F in so far as demanding Ground Rent, GST on Ground Rent, License Fee, Scrutiny Fee, Betterment Charges for Building, Betterment Charges for Site, 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 etc, as illegal, without juri iction and arbitrary.
b. Grant an Order, Direction or Writ in the nature of Mandamus, directing the Respondents to issue the Sanction Plan for construction of Residential-Apartment Building to the Petitioners.
c. Grant such other Reliefs/ as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit to Grant, including cost of the Petitioner, in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interests of justice and equity.”
The Co-ordinate Benches of this Court, in W.P.No.23086/2022 and connected matters (herein HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22994 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-laws as ultra vires the Act and quashed the Government Circulars dated 04.09.2015, 27.01.2017, and 30.03.2017. and 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 HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22994 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.
Accordingly, this Court proceeds to pass the following: ORDER (i) The writ petition is allowed.
(ii) The impugned undated demand notice issued by respondent No.3 as per Annexure-F is hereby set-aside. HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22994 (iii) Respondent No.2 - BBMP is hereby directed to issue fresh/modified plan as the case may be.
(iv) Respondent No.2 - BBMP is 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 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.
Pending applications, if any, are also disposed off. (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE NBM List No.: 2 Sl No.: 30
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.