Sri P Ramakantha Shetty vs. The State Of Karnataka
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioners, Sri P. Ramakantha Shetty and Smt. Nalini R. Shetty, filed a writ petition challenging the Karnataka Municipal Corporations and Certain Other Law (Amendment) Act, 2021 (Karnataka Act No.1 of 2022), and various other notifications, circulars, and an office order. They sought to declare these legislative amendments and administrative actions as ultra vires the Constitution and contrary to previous High Court decisions. Specifically, they challenged the demand notice issued by the Assistant Director, Town Planning, Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP), which included demands for Ground rent, GST on Ground rent, License fee, scrutiny fee, betterment charges, and various other cesses and surcharges. The petitioners sought a direction to issue a sanctioned plan for their residential building without insisting on these charges and fees.
Held
The Court allowed the writ petition, noting that the issues raised were squarely covered by previous binding decisions of coordinate benches. In the case of 'M/s Sapthagiri Shelters', the Court had struck down 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, was illegal. That judgment also quashed related circulars and declared Clause 3.8 of the BBMP Building Bye-laws, 2003, pertaining to Ground Rent, as invalid. Similarly, 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 government circulars were quashed. Consequently, the impugned demand notice (Annexure-D) was set aside. The BBMP was directed 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. The Court clarified that the issuance of the license and plan should not be withheld due to the BBMP contemplating an appeal, but any such issuance would be subject to the outcome of any appeal filed.
Key Issues
1. Whether the Karnataka Municipal Corporations and Certain Other Law (Amendment) Act, 2021 (Karnataka Act No.1 of 2022), is ultra vires the Constitution, particularly concerning the petitioner's rights. The petitioner argued that this Act, along with other impugned notifications and circulars, is in violation of previous judgments of this Court. The respondents' arguments are not recorded. 2. Whether Section 18-A of the Karnataka Town & Country Planning Act, 1961, specifically sub-sections (i) and (iv), is liable to be quashed. The petitioner contended that these provisions are illegal and arbitrary. The respondents' arguments are not recorded. 3. Whether the notifications issued by the State of Karnataka, introducing Rules 37-A and 37-C, and the circulars issued by the BBMP, are liable to be quashed. The petitioner argued that these levies are illegal and without jurisdiction. The respondents' arguments are not recorded. 4. Whether the demand notice issued by the BBMP for various charges, including GST on Ground rent, is illegal, without jurisdiction, and arbitrary. The petitioner sought to quash this demand notice and sought a direction to issue a sanctioned building plan without insisting on these charges.
Sections Cited
Section 45-B, Rule 37-A, Rule 37-C
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Before: SMT. NALINI R. SHETTY DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI DR. B.R AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
The captioned petition is filed seeking the following reliefs: i) Grant an order declaring that the entire Karnataka Municipal Corporations and Certain Other Law (Amendment) Act, 2021 (Karnataka Act No.01 of 2022) 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) notified on 13/01/2022 (Annexure- HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23105 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 (Annexure-K) 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-J) 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-L) 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-M) 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 Ce dated 24/06/2021, bearing No. He. Ni.Na. Yo/P.R/320/2020-21 issued by the Respondent No.3 (Annexure-N) 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/Ad.Com/BMH/2194/23-24, 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:23105 License fee, scrutiny fee, Betterment charges for building, SC Betterment charges for site, security deposit, Lake Rejuvenation 125 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 Building in the Schedule Property without insisting the 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 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.
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 HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23105 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.
In light of the authoritative pronouncements, the present petition does not warrant separate adjudication HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23105 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 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 directed to forthwith process the petitioner’s 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 HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23105 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 HDK List No.: 2 Sl No.: 40
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.