M/S. Sjr Prime Homes PVT LTD. vs. State Of Karnataka
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/s. SJR Prime Homes Pvt. Ltd., filed a writ petition challenging various provisions of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961, and related rules and bye-laws, as well as a demand notice issued by the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP). The demand notice, dated February 10, 2021, issued by the Joint Director (Building License Directory North) of BBMP, sought payment of Rs. 18,80,991/- towards Ground Rent, Rs. 3,38,578/- towards GST at 18% on Ground Rent, and other charges including License Fee, Security Deposit, Scrutiny Fee, Water Supply, Ring Road, Slum Development, Transportation charges, and Labour Cess. The petitioner sought to quash these provisions and the demand notice, and to direct the BBMP to issue a revised building plan and license without insisting on the disputed payments.
Held
The Court allowed the writ petition. It noted that similar issues raised in the present petition had been comprehensively adjudicated and settled by coordinate benches of the High Court in previous cases, specifically "M/s Sapthagiri Shelters" and "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 certain 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 linking fees to market/guidance value, and Clause 3.8 of the BBMP Building Bye-laws, 2003, pertaining to Ground Rent, was declared invalid. Based on these binding pronouncements, the Court held that the present petition did not warrant separate adjudication. Consequently, the impugned demand notice dated February 10, 2021, issued by respondent No. 4 was set aside. The BBMP was directed to issue a fresh/modified plan and forthwith process the petitioner's application for a building license and sanction of the building plan strictly in accordance with law. The Court clarified that the issuance of the license and plan approval should not be withheld pending any appeal by the BBMP, but would be subject to the outcome of such an appeal.
Key Issues
1. Whether Section 18-A(i) and (iv) of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961, as amended by Karnataka Act No. 23 of 2004, are unconstitutional, arbitrary, illegal, and ultra vires? (Question of law) 2. Whether Rule 37-A and Rule 37-C of the Karnataka Planning Authority Rules, 1965, as amended by the notification dated February 25, 2020, are unconstitutional, arbitrary, illegal, and ultra vires? (Question of law) 3. Whether the demand notice dated February 10, 2021, issued by the BBMP, demanding various charges including Ground Rent, GST on Ground Rent, License Fee, and Labour Cess, is illegal and liable to be quashed? (Question of mixed law and fact) 4. Whether Bye-law No. 3.9 of the Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Building Bye-laws, 2003, is unconstitutional, arbitrary, illegal, and ultra vires? (Question of law) Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the impugned provisions of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961, and the BBMP Building Bye-laws, 2003, along with the related notifications and demand notice, were illegal and liable to be quashed. They relied on previous judgments of coordinate benches of the High Court that had dealt with similar issues. Revenue/State's Arguments: The judgment does not record specific arguments made by the respondents (State of Karnataka and BBMP).
Sections Cited
Section 18-A, Rule 37-A, Rule 37-C, Bye-law No. 3.9, Section 45-B
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Before: DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
Petitioner, in the captioned petition has sought for following reliefs : (a) Issue a writ of certiorari or similar writ or order or direction to quash 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 1st Respondent at ANNEXURE-E in so far as 18- A(i) and (iv) of Karnataka Act No.23 of 2004 is concerned. (b) grant an order, direction or writ in the nature of Certiorari quashing the Notification issued by the 1st Respondent bearing No. UDD 3 TPP 2015dated 25.02.2020 as contained in ANNEXURE-F in sofar as the amended Rule 37-A and Rule 37-C are concerned; (c) issue a writ of certiorari or similar writ or order or direction to quash the demand notice No.BBMP/Addl. Dir/JD North/LP/0014/2020- 21 dated 10.02.2021 vide ANNEXURE-C issued by respondent No.4 in so far as the demand of Rs.18,80,991/- towards Ground Rent, Rs.3,38,578/- towards GST of 18% on Ground Rent, Rs.1,98,251/- towards security HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22984 deposit, Rs.37,61,981/- towards License Fee, Rs.1,88,099/- towards Scrutiny Fee, Rs.14,40,670/- towards Water Supply, Rs.14,40,670/- towards Ring Road, Rs.7,20,335/- towards Slum Development, Rs.36,01,674/- towards Transportation charges (MRTS) and Rs.3,20,000/- towards II Karnataka State Building and other Construction Workers Welfare Board labour cess is concerned. (d) Issue Writ of Certiorari quashing the Government Order issued by the 2nd Respondent bearing G.O.No.LD 300 LET 2006 dated 18/01/2007 and the Corrigendum bearing No. LD 300 LET 2006 dated 28/02/2007 directing upfront collection of labour welfare cess, as contained in ANNEXURE-G (e) Issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction declaring that Bye-law No.3.9 in the Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Building Bye- laws, 2003 framed under the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act as unconstitutional, arbitrary, illegal and ultra vires; HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22984 (f) issue writ of mandamus or similar writ or order or direction directing the respondent Nos.3 and 4 to issue building revised plan and license pursuant to their communication issued by the respondent No.4 without insisting for payment of amount mentioned above. (g) issue any other appropriate writ or order or direction deemed fit in the 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.
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 HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22984 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 the relevant bye-laws and government circulars have been set aside.
In light of the authoritative pronouncements, the present petition does not warrant separate HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22984 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 10.02.2021 issued by respondent No.4 as per Annexure-C 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. (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 HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22984 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 SMJ List No.: 2 Sl No.: 2
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.