M/S Urban Developers vs. State Of Karnataka
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/s. Urban Developers, filed a writ petition challenging the constitutional validity of Sections 240A and 240C inserted into the BBMP Act via Karnataka Ordinance No. 8 of 2021. The petitioner also sought to quash an officer's order dated 09/12/2021, Section 18-A of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961, amendments to Rules 37-A and 37-C of the Karnataka Planning Authority Rules, a circular dated 14.8.2020, and demand notes dated 05.06.2024 issued by the Assistant Director Town Planning, BBMP. These demands pertained to ground rent, GST on ground rent, betterment charges, excess security deposit, license fee, scrutiny fee, various cesses, and surcharges. The petitioner sought directions to issue a sanctioned plan without these charges.
Held
The High Court, in this writ petition, noted that the core issues raised were substantially covered by a coordinate bench's judgment in W.P.No.23086/2022 and connected matters. That judgment had partly allowed the writ petitions, quashed the Karnataka Municipal Corporations and Certain Other Law (Amendment) Acts of 2021 and 2023, and declared 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, applicable only to development plans for plots exceeding 20,000 square meters. The prior judgment also held that if fees were already collected for land use change or layout plan approval, no further fee should be levied for subsequent development plans. It declared the linking of levies to market or guidance value illegal and quashed related circulars and demand notices, including Clause 3.8 of the BBMP Building Bye-laws, 2003, concerning 'Ground Rent'. Consequently, this Court allowed the present writ petition, setting aside the impugned demand notices and directing the BBMP to issue a fresh/modified plan and process the petitioner's application for a building license and sanction strictly in accordance with law, subject to the outcome of any appeal by the BBMP.
Key Issues
1. Whether Sections 240A and 240C inserted into the BBMP Act by Karnataka Ordinance No. 8 of 2021 are unconstitutional? 2. Whether 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, are ultra vires and unconstitutional? 3. Whether the circular dated 14.8.2020 issued by Respondent No. 4 and the demand notes dated 05.06.2024 issued by Respondent No. 5 are illegal, without jurisdiction, and arbitrary? The petitioner argued that the inserted sections and amended rules were unconstitutional and arbitrary, leading to illegal demands for various charges. The respondents, represented by the State and BBMP, did not file a specific counter-argument in the provided text, but the court's decision indicates that the core issues were addressed by a coordinate bench's prior judgment.
Sections Cited
Section 240A, Section 240C, 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
The captioned petition is filed seeking the following reliefs: A)ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF 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 ORDINANCE NO. 8 OF 2021 UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
B) ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT, ORDER, DIRECTION OF SIMILAR NATURE QUASHING THE OFFICER ORDER DATED 09/12/2021 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.4 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-E UNCONSTITUTIONAL. VIDE HE.NI.NA.YO/PR/461/2021-22. HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22762 C) 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 ANNEXURE-G AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
D) 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 NO. UDD 3 TTP 2015 DATED 25.02.2020 IS ULTRA VIRES AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL; ANNEXURE-F.
E) ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF DECLARATION OR ANY OTHER SIMILAR WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION DECLARING THAT CIRCULAR DATED 14.8.2020 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.4 BEARING NUMBER HE.NE.KA PA.KO./320/2020-21 AT ANNEXURE-H IS ILLEGAL AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
F. ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER SIMILAR ORDER, WRIT, OR DIRECTION QUASHING DEMAND NOTE VIDE L.P NO BBMP/EODB/CH/9564/24- 25 AND DEMAND NOTE VIDE L.P NO BBMP/EODB/CH/9565/24-25 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO. 5 DATED 05.06.2024 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE- C AND D INSOFAR 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.
G. ISSUES A WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTION BY WAY OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NO.4 AND 5 BBMP TO ISSUE THE SANCTION PLAN FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE BUILDING IN THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY WITHOUT INSISTING THE GROUND RENT GST ON GROUND RENT, BETTERMENT CHARGES FOR BUILDING, BETTERMENT CHARGES FOR SITE, EXCESS HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22762 SECURITY DEPOSIT, REVISED LICENSE FEE, REVISED SCRUTINY FEE, CESS FOR WATER SUPPLY SCHEME, SURCHARGES FOR FORMATION OUTER RING ROAD. CESS FOR IMPROVEMENT OF SLUM SURCHARGE FOR MASS RAPID TRANSPORT SYSTEM, LABOUR CESS AND ETC.,
H. PASS ANY SUCH OTHER ORDERS AS THIS HON'BLE COURT DEEMS FIT IN THE FACT AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 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, 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. HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22762 (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 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 HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22762 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."
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 HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22762 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 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 HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22762 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.
In view of the above, this Court proceeds to pass the following; ORDER (i) The writ petition is allowed. (ii) The impugned demand notices dated 05.06.2024 issued by respondent No.5 as per Annexure-C and D are hereby set-aside. HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22762 (iii) Respondent- BBMP hereby directed to issue fresh/modified plan as the case may be. (iv) Respondent- BBMP is hereby 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 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 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
HDK List No.: 2 Sl No.: 22
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.