Mr Jemson Leonard Dsouza vs. State Of Karnataka
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioners, Mr. Jemson Leonard Dsouza and Mrs. Jacintha Ida Dsouza, filed a writ petition challenging an undated demand notice issued by the Assistant Director, Town Planning, Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike (BBMP). The notice 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 this demand notice as illegal, without jurisdiction, and arbitrary. They also prayed for a direction to the respondents to issue a sanction plan for the construction of a commercial building.
Held
The Court held that the issues raised in the present writ petition are squarely covered by the binding decisions in "M/s Sapthagiri Shelters" and "Sunderam Shetty". In "Sunderam Shetty", a Co-ordinate Bench had 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 specific government circulars. Similarly, in "M/s Sapthagiri Shelters", a Co-ordinate Bench struck down Karnataka Act No.01 of 2022 and Karnataka Act No.37 of 2024, holding the linking of 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, as illegal. This judgment further quashed related circulars and declared Clause 3.8 of the BBMP Building Bye-laws, 2003, pertaining to Ground Rent, as invalid. Therefore, the present petition did not warrant separate adjudication and was liable to be allowed in terms of the operative directions issued in the aforesaid writ petitions. The Court set aside the impugned demand notice and directed the BBMP to issue a fresh/modified sanction plan and process the petitioners' application for a building license and sanction strictly in accordance with law.
Key Issues
1. Whether the demand for Ground Rent, License Fee, Building License Fee, and Scrutiny Fee under the relevant bye-laws is ultra vires the Act, as declared in previous judgments of this Court? 2. Whether the linking of 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, as held in previous judgments, renders the demand illegal? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioners contended that the issues raised in their petition are squarely covered by previous binding decisions of this Court, specifically the cases of "M/s Sapthagiri Shelters" and "Sunderam Shetty". They argued that these judgments have already set aside the relevant bye-laws and government circulars that form the basis of the demand notice. Revenue/State's Argument: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondents. However, it notes that the respondents are the State of Karnataka, the Commissioner of BBMP, and the Assistant Director of Town Planning, BBMP.
Sections Cited
Section 45-B, Rule 37-A
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 by way of certiorari quashing the undated demand notice by the 3rd Respondent in LP.No.BBMP/ad.Com/EST/0820/2024-25, bearing Project No.PRJ/8362/24-25 Vide Annexure-F in so far 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 of 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.
b. Grant any Order, Direction or Writ in the nature of Mandamus, directing the Respondents to issue the Sanction Plan for the construction of Commercial Building to the Petitioners.
c. Grant such other Relief/s as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit to Grant, including cost of the Petitioners, in the facts and circumstances of HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22898 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 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 HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22898 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.
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: HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22898 ORDER (i) The writ petition is allowed.
(ii) The impugned undated demand notice bearing No.LP.NO.BBMP/Ad.Com/ EST/0820/2024-25, Project No.PRJ/8362/ 24-25 issued by respondent No.3 as per Annexure-F is hereby set-aside.
(iii) Respondent No.2 - BBMP is hereby directed to issue fresh/modified sanction 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. HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22898 (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.: 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.