Mr B Siddegowda vs. State Of Karnataka

WP/12912/2023HC KarnatakaGSTCNR KAHC01030747202325 June 2025Bench: SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM8 pages

For Petitioner: SRI PRATAP REDDY S. AND SRI RAJATH H.V., ADVOCATESFor Respondent: SRI BOPANNA B., AGA FOR R-1 AND R-2; SRI PAWAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R-3 TO R-5

AI SummaryAllowed

Facts

The petitioners, Mr. B. Siddegowda and others, filed a writ petition challenging the constitutional validity of Sections 240A and 240C of the BBMP Act, as inserted by Karnataka Ordinance No. 8 of 2021. They also sought to quash an Officer Order dated 09.12.2021 issued by Respondent No. 4, and declared 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, as unconstitutional. Furthermore, they challenged a Circular dated 14.08.2020 issued by Respondent No. 4 and specific demand notes (BBMP/EoDB/CH/40504/22-23 and BBMP/EoDB/CH/40505/22-23) issued by Respondent No. 5, which included levies such as ground rent, GST on ground rent, betterment charges, and various other cess and surcharges. The petitioners sought a direction to issue sanction plans without these disputed charges.

Held

The Court held that the issues raised in the present writ petition were squarely covered by 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 dated 04.09.2015, 27.01.2017, and 30.03.2017 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 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 require separate adjudication and was liable to be allowed in terms of the operative directions issued in the aforesaid writ petitions. The impugned demand notices were set aside, and the BBMP was directed to issue fresh/modified plans and process building license applications strictly in accordance with law, without withholding them based on the contemplation of an appeal, though any issued license/plan would be subject to the outcome of any appeal.

Key Issues

1. Whether Sections 240A and 240C of the BBMP Act, inserted by Karnataka Ordinance No. 8 of 2021, are unconstitutional? 2. Whether Section 18-A of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961, is unconstitutional? 3. Whether amendments to Rule 37-A and 37-C of the Karnataka Planning Authority Rules, 1965, are ultra vires and unconstitutional? 4. Whether the Circular dated 14.08.2020 issued by Respondent No. 4 is illegal and unconstitutional? 5. Whether the demand notes issued by Respondent No. 5, concerning ground rent, GST on ground rent, betterment charges, and other levies, are illegal, without jurisdiction, and arbitrary? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioners contended that the aforementioned sections, rules, circulars, and demand notes were unconstitutional and illegal. They sought a declaration to this effect and consequential relief, including the quashing of demand notices and the issuance of building sanction plans without the disputed charges. Revenue/State's Arguments: The judgment does not record specific arguments from the respondents. However, it notes that the issues raised were comprehensively adjudicated by co-ordinate benches in previous writ petitions.

Sections Cited

Section 45-B, Section 18-A, Rule 37-A, Rule 37-C, Section 240A, Section 240C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24121 WP No. 12912 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO.12912 OF 2023 (LB-BMP) BETWEEN: 1. MR. B. SIDDEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS S/O. BALLAIAH NO.94, 11TH CROSS ULLAL MAIN ROAD JNANAGANGANAGAR BENGALURU-560 056. 2. MR. BABU AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS S/O. SHANKRAPPA KAMBAR NO.26/24, 7TH CROSS SARASWATHINAGAR MARENAHALLI, VIJAYANAGARA BENGALURU-560 040. 3. MRS. DR. AMBUJAKSHI AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS W/O. BABU KUMBAR B.S. NO.26/24, 7TH CROSS SARASWATHINAGAR MARENAHALLI, VIJAYANAGARA BENGALURU-560 040. 4. MR. HANUMANTHARAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS S/O. HANUMEGOWDA NO.703, SRI MARUTHI NILAYA OPPOSITE A I T COLLEGE MALLATHALLI LAYOUT Digitally signed by CHAITHRA P Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24121 WP No. 12912 of 2023 KENGUNTE, BALAGANGADHAR NAGAR BENGALURU-560 056. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI PRATAP REDDY S. AND SRI RAJATH H.V., ADVOCATES) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY VIKASA SOUDHA DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU-560 001. 2. THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY VIKASA SOUDHA DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU-560 001. 3. BENGALURU BRUHAT MAHANAGARA PALIKE RAJARAJESHWARINAGAR BENGALURU-560 098. 4. CHIEF COMMISSIONER BBMP RAJARAJESHWARINAGAR BENGALURU-560 098. 5. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR TOWN PLANNING DEPARTMENT BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE RAJARAJESHWARINAGAR BENGALURU-560 098. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI BOPANNA B., AGA FOR R-1 AND R-2; SRI PAWAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R-3 TO R-5) * * * - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24121 WP No. 12912 of 2023 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING FOR 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 AND ETC. THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

ORAL ORDER

Caption petition is filed seeking the following reliefs :- "a. Issue a writ in the nature of a 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 9.12.2021 ºÉ¤£ÀAiÉÆÃ/¦Dgï/461/2021-22 issued by Respondent No.4 produced at Annexure- G unconstitutional. HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24121 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-J 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 is ultra vires and unconstitutional; Annexure-H bearing No.UDD 3TTP 2015 dated 25-2-2020. 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-K 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 BBMP/EoDB/CH/40504/22-23 and Demand Note vide BBMP/EoDB/CH/40505/22-23 issued by Respondent No.5 produced at Annexure D and E 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 HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24121 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 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., and h. Pass any such other orders as this Hon'ble court deems fit in the fact and circumstance 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:24121

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:24121 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 notices dated 13.12.2022 issued by respondent No.5 as per Annexures-D & E 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. HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24121 (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

NG List No.: 2 Sl No.: 24

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.