Sri A M Munirathnam vs. The State Of Karnataka
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Sri A.M. Munirathnam, 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 a demand notice issued by the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) and other state authorities. The petitioner sought to declare these enactments and actions as ultra vires the Constitution and contrary to previous High Court decisions. The demand notice, dated 30/10/2024, issued by the Assistant Director, Town Planning (Bommanahalli), sought various charges including 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, and Labour cess. The petitioner sought a direction to issue a sanction plan without these demands.
Held
The Court held that the issues raised in the present writ petition are squarely covered by previous binding decisions of co-ordinate 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 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 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. Related circulars were quashed, 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. The impugned demand notice dated 30.10.2024 was set aside. 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. It was clarified that the issuance of the license and plan approval would not be withheld due to BBMP contemplating an appeal, 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, particularly in relation to the petitioner's concerns and in violation of this Hon'ble Court's decision in W.P No.4601/2020 (LB-BMP)? 2. Whether Section 18-A(i) and (iv) of the Karnataka Town & Country Planning Act, 1961, as brought into effect by Karnataka Act No. 23 of 2004, are liable to be quashed? 3. Whether Notifications bearing No. UDD 3 TTP 2015 dated 25/02/2020 and No. UDD 23 TTP 2020 (E) dated 21/06/2021, insofar as they insert Rules 37-A and 37-C, are liable to be quashed? 4. Whether the circulars dated 14/08/2020 and 24/06/2021 issued by Respondent No.3 are liable to be quashed? 5. Whether the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike and Certain other Law (Amendment) Act, 2023 (Notification bearing No.DPAL 36 Shasana 2023) is ultra vires the Constitution? 6. Whether the demand notice dated 30/10/2024, demanding various charges including GST on Ground rent, is illegal, without jurisdiction, and arbitrary? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner 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 quashing of these actions and a direction to issue the sanction plan without the contested charges. Respondents' Arguments: The judgment does not record specific arguments from the respondents. However, it notes that co-ordinate benches have comprehensively adjudicated similar issues.
Sections Cited
Section 45-B, Rule 37-A, Rule 37-C
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Before: 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-R) is HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23103 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 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) to declare that the entire Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike and Certain other Law (Amendment) Act, 2023 notified on 16/08/2024 vide Notification bearing No.DPAL 36 Shasana 2023, Bengaluru issued by the Respondent No.2 (Annexure-T1) as being ultra vires the Constitution of India" HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23103 x) issue a writ or order by way of certiorari quashing the demand notice dated 30/10/2024, bearing No.BBMP/Ad.Com/BMH/ 1191/24-25, issued by the Respondent No.4 (Annexure-D) for demanding in so far it is concerned to 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, Labour cess and etc., as illegal, without juri iction and arbitrary. xi) 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 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 xii) 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:23103
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 HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23103 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 demand notice dated 30.10.2024 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. HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23103 (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 HDK List No.: 2 Sl No.: 28
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.