Sri. S Raghu vs. State Of Karnataka
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Sri S. Raghu, filed a writ petition challenging a demand notice dated April 7, 2021, issued by the Assistant Director Town Planning, Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP). The demand notice included various charges such as scrutiny fee, ground rent, GST, license fee, betterment fees, security deposit, and cess/surcharges for different schemes. The petitioner sought to quash this demand notice and declare certain provisions of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961, and related rules as unconstitutional and illegal. The petitioner also prayed for the issuance of a building license and sanctioned plan without insisting on the payment of the disputed demands.
Held
The Court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the impugned demand notice dated April 7, 2021, issued by Respondent No. 3. This decision was based on the finding that the core issues raised in the present writ petition were substantially covered and decided by a coordinate bench in a 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) Acts of 2021 and 2023. It was also 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, apply only to development proposals for plots exceeding 20,000 square meters. The linkage of levies to market value was declared illegal, and consequently, all impugned circulars and demand notices were quashed. Clause 3.8 of the BBMP Building Bye-laws, 2003, imposing 'Ground Rent', was also struck down. The ratio decidendi is that if a coordinate bench has authoritatively decided similar issues, subsequent petitions raising the same points should be decided in line with that precedent.
Key Issues
1. Whether the demand notice dated April 7, 2021, issued by Respondent No. 3, demanding payment of scrutiny fee, ground rent, GST, license fee, betterment fees, security deposit, and various cess/surcharges, is liable to be quashed? (Question of law) 2. Whether Section 18-A of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961, as amended, and Rules 37-A and 37-C of the Karnataka Planning Authority Rules, 1965, are unconstitutional, arbitrary, illegal, and ultra vires? (Question of law) Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner sought to quash the demand notice and challenged the legality of the levies. The petitioner also argued that excluding certain categories of persons from exemption clauses and compelling others to pay fees irrespective of utilizing public land is unconstitutional. The petitioner relied on the principle that levies should not be arbitrary or illegal. Respondents' Arguments: The judgment does not explicitly record arguments made by the respondents. However, their participation in the proceedings implies a defense of the demand notice and the relevant statutory provisions.
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 Caption petition is filed seeking the following reliefs :- "a) issue a Writ of certiorari or any other writ or order quashing the Demand Notice bearing LP No.BBMP/Ad.Com./MDP/0001/21-22 dated 07 April, 2021 at ANNEXURE-G issued by the Respondent No.3 HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23243 in so far as the demand for payment of Scrutiny Fee, Ground Rent and GST, License Fee, Betterment Fee for building, Betterment Fee for site, Security Deposit, Cess/surcharge for water supply scheme (BWSSB), Ring Road(BDA), improving slums (KSCB), Mass Rapid Transport System (BDA), levy and collection of 5% cess on surcharge;
b) issue a Writ or any other order declaring that excluding categories of persons from the exemption clause and the compulsion to some classes of people to make such payment whether they utilise public land for storage of material or not is unconstitutional, arbitrary, illegal and ultra vires;
c) issue a Writ of certiorari or any other writ or order quashing the provisions of Section 18-A of Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961 brought into effect by Karnataka Act No.23 of 2004 by the first Respondent at ANNEXURE-H in so far as Section 18- A(i) and (iv) of Karnataka Act No.23 of 2004 is concerned.
d) issue a Writ of certiorari or any other writ or order quashing the Notification issued by the first Respondent bearing No. UDD 3 TTP 2015 dated 25- 2-2020 ANNEXURE-J in so far as the amended Rule 37-A and Rule 37-C are concerned; HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23243 e) issue a Writ of mandamus or any other writ or order directing the Respondents Nos.2 and 3 to issue Licence and Sanctioned Plan to the Petitioner pursuant to the approval of his request vide letter dated 3-4-2021 and approval thereof cited in Demand Notice LP No.BBMP/Ad.Com/MDP/0001/21- 22 dated 7-4-2021 at ANNEXURE-G without insisting for payment of the aforesaid demands.
f) pass any other Order as to this Honourable Court may seem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case, in furtherance 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). HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23243 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. (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 HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23243 ‘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 citizens of Bengaluru. This would also augment the present situation." HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23243
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 layout plan, no further fee shall be levied for subsequent HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23243 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 writ petition is liable to be allowed strictly aligning to the operative portion of the said writ petition. HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23243
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 07.04.2021 issued by respondent No.3 as per Annexure-G 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 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 HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23243 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
NG List No.: 2 Sl No.: 17
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.