Sri Nithin S Rao vs. The State Of Karnataka
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioners, Sri Nithin S. Rao and Smt. Ranjani Rao, challenged the constitutional validity of 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). They also sought to quash various notifications, circulars, and a demand notice issued by the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) and the State of Karnataka concerning development charges, ground rent, and other fees. The petitioners argued that these amendments and subsequent actions were ultra vires the Constitution and contrary to previous judgments of the High Court. The core of their challenge involved levies such as ground rent, GST on ground rent, license fee, scrutiny fee, betterment charges, and various development cesses.
Held
The High Court held that the core issues raised in the present writ petition were substantially covered and decided by a coordinate bench in a previous reported judgment (W.P.No.23086/2022 and connected matters). The coordinate bench had quashed and 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). The Court further declared that 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 for plots exceeding 20,000 square meters. It was also held that if fees were already collected for change of land use or layout plan approval, no further fee should be levied for subsequent development plans. The linkage of these levies to market or guidance value under Section 45-B of the Karnataka Stamp Act was declared illegal, and all consequential circulars and demand notices were quashed. Clause 3.8 of the BBMP Building Bye-laws, 2003, concerning 'Ground Rent', was also struck down. Consequently, the impugned demand notice dated 04/12/2024 issued to the petitioners was set aside. The BBMP was directed to issue a fresh/modified plan and process the petitioner's application for a building license and plan sanction strictly in accordance with law. The issuance of the license and plan approval was not to be withheld pending any appeal by the BBMP, though it 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) and the Karnataka Municipal Corporations and Certain Other Law (Amendment) Act, 2023 (Karnataka Act No. 37 of 2024) are ultra vires the Constitution, particularly in relation to the levies imposed on the petitioners. 2. Whether Section 18-A of the Karnataka Town & Country Planning Act, 1961, as amended, and Rules 37-A and 37-C of the Karnataka Planning Authority Rules, 1965, are applicable to all plot sizes or only to those exceeding a certain extent. 3. Whether the linkage of fees under Rule 37-A to the market value or guidance value under Section 45-B of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957, is legal. 4. Whether Clause 3.8 of the Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Building Bye-laws, 2003, providing for 'Ground Rent', is legal. 5. Whether the demand notice dated 04/12/2024 issued by the Assistant Director, Town Planning-(South), BBMP, demanding various charges including ground rent, GST on ground rent, license fee, and betterment charges, is illegal, without jurisdiction, and arbitrary. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioners contended that the impugned Acts and subsequent actions were unconstitutional and violated previous High Court decisions. They argued that the levies were arbitrary and without proper legal basis. Revenue/State's arguments: The judgment does not explicitly record arguments from the Revenue or State respondents. However, their actions in issuing the impugned Acts, notifications, circulars, and demand notices indicate their stance in upholding these levies.
Sections Cited
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 relief: 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 HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23726 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 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; viil)issue a writ or order by way of certiorari quashing the circular dated 24/06/2021, bearing No. He.Ni.Na. Yo/P.R/320/2021-22 issued by the Respondent No.3 (Annexure-N) in so far the Petitioner is concerned. HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23726 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" x) issue a writ or order by way of certiorari quashing the demand notice dated 04/12/2024, bearing No.BBMP/Ad.Com/SUT/1083/24-25, 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, Surcharge for Mass Rapid Transport System, 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 Additional and alteration 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 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."
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 HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23726 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. (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. HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23726 (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 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 HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23726 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 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 HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23726 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 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 HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23726 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 notice dated 04.12.2024 issued by respondent No.4 as per Annexure-D, is hereby set-aside. (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 HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23726 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.: 29
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.