Smt T Manjula vs. State Of Karnataka
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioners, Smt. T. Manjula and others, filed a writ petition challenging the Karnataka Municipal Corporations and Certain Other Law (Amendment) Act, 2021 (Act No. 1/2022), and subsequent office orders, demand notes, and circulars issued by the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) and other state authorities. The primary dispute involved a demand note for Rs. 85,82,000/- issued by the Assistant Director of Town Planning, BBMP, for various charges including license fee, scrutiny fee, penalty for additional construction, and ground rent with GST, related to a property in Naganathapura village. The petitioners sought to quash these legislative amendments, administrative actions, and the demand notice, deeming them ultra vires and unconstitutional.
Held
The Court held that the core issues raised in the present writ petition were substantially covered and decided by a coordinate bench in a reported judgment. 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). Furthermore, it was 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 court also declared illegal the linkage of fees to market or guidance values and struck down Clause 3.8 of the BBMP Building Bye-laws, 2003, concerning 'Ground Rent'. Consequently, all impugned circulars and demand notices issued to give effect to these provisions were quashed. The ratio decidendi is that legislative amendments and administrative actions found to be ultra vires or illegal, as determined by a higher court, must be set aside, and consequential actions like demand notices must be quashed. The impugned demand notice dated 23.04.2025 (Annexure-D) was set aside, and the BBMP was directed to issue an Occupancy Certificate in accordance with the law and the approved building plan.
Key Issues
1. Whether the Karnataka Municipal Corporations and Certain Other Law (Amendment) Act, 2021 (Karnataka Act No. 1/2022) and the Karnataka Municipal Corporations and Certain Other Law (Amendment) Act, 2023 (Karnataka Act No. 37 of 2024) are ultra vires and unconstitutional, as contended by the petitioners? 2. Whether 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 plans for plots exceeding 20,000 square meters, and not for smaller plots, as argued by the petitioners? 3. Whether the linkage of fees leviable under Rule 37-A of the Karnataka Planning Authority Rules, 1965, to the 'market value' or 'guidance value' under Section 45-B of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957, is illegal, as submitted by the petitioners? 4. Whether Clause 3.8 of the Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Building Bye-laws, 2003, providing for 'Ground Rent', is illegal, as claimed by the petitioners? 5. Whether the impugned demand notices issued by the BBMP, including the one for Rs. 85,82,000/-, are liable to be quashed, as prayed by the petitioners? The petitioners argued that the impugned legislative amendments and subsequent actions were unconstitutional and ultra vires. The respondents, represented by the State and BBMP, did not present specific arguments in the judgment, as the matter was decided based on a coordinate bench's prior ruling.
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
Before: SMT. T.MANJULA, SMT. JAYAMMA, SMT. KANAKAMMA,
Petitioners, in the captioned petition has sought for following reliefs : (i) Issue a writ of certiorari or similar writ or order or direction to quash the Karnataka Municipal Corporations and Certain other law(amendment) act 2021 act No.1/2022 dated 13/01/2022 enacted by the second respondent published through notification bearing No.DPAL 50 SHASANA 2021 gazette on 13/01/2022 at ANNEXURE-G declaring it to be ultravires and unconstitutional. So for as petitioner is concerned. (ii) Issue writ of certiorari or similar writ or order or direction to quash the office order bearing No. ADTP/PR/461/2021-22 dated 09/03/2022 issued by the third respondent at ANNEXURE-H. So for as petitioner is concerned. (iii) Issue a writ of certiorari to quash the demand note bearing No.¸ÀASÉå.¸À.¤.£À.AiÉÆÃ/¨ÉÆ.ªÀ/N.¹/07/24-25, anddated 23/04/2025, property at bearing Kataha No.19/sy.no.36/2,36/3,36/4,40/2, Naganathapura village, Beguru Hobli, Bangalore south taluk, Ward No.191, has been approved by The Chief Commissioner BBMP A/C ADTP, Bommanahalli zone, Bangalore. Under various heads. Theis includes the i. License fee, 2. Scrutiny fee, 3. Extra penalty for HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23019 additional construction and 4. Ground Rent with GST, Amount to Rs. 85,82,000/-. The copy of the demand Notice dated 23/4/2025 is produced herewith and marked as ANNEXURE-D issued by the respondent No.4 in so far as demand towards. Fee payable to BBMP. LP/0066/13-14, Dated 3/5/2013 to 2/5/2015 Sl.N o Particul ars Area Differen ce area deviatio n %of devia tion Remarkss anction area 1 As per sanction FAR Area 8934.5
2 As per as sanction Gross BUA 10391. 67 3 As built FAR Area 9278.4 6 343.96 3.84 % 4 As Built gross BUA 10735. 63 343.96 3.31 % 5 Total division for FAR
92
6 Guidelinve Value 50000
7 Deviatio n fee within the FAR Area 344 Fee% 8.8% Amou nt 4400 Total 15,13,600 8 Ground rent penalty for 10 107735 .63 0.11% 55 59,04597 HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23019 years GST
18%
1062827 10 Scrutin y fee (as built gross area) 10735. 63 0.014% 7 75149 11 C.C. Fine 0.00 0,22% 110 0 12 Copies fee
25000 13 Applicat ion fee
500 14 Grand total 85,81,673 15 Say amount 85,82,000.00 16 Rs. Eighty five lakh eighty two thousand only In favour of The Chief Commissioner BBMP A/C ADTP Bommanahalli zone (iv) Issue writ of Certiorari or similar writ, order or direction to quash the Circular bearing No.He.Ni.Ka. Pa.Ko/320/2020-21 dated 14/08/2020 at ANNEXURE-J issued by the 3rd Respondent. So for as petitioner is concerned. (v) 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-Kin so far as 18-A (i) and ) (iv) of Karnataka act No.23 of 2004 is concerned. So for as petitioner is concerned. (vi) Grant an order, direction or writ in the nature of Certiorari quashing the notification issued by the 1st respondent bearing No.UDD 3TTP 2015 dated HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23019 25/2/2020 as contained in ANNEXURE-Lin so far as the amended Rule 37-A and rule 37-C are concerned, so for as petitioner is concerned. (vii) Issue any other appropriate writ or order or direction to the respondents demand fit in the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity. (viii) Pass any such other orders as this Hon'ble court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest 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; HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23019 "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 ‘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, HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23019 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."
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:23019 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:23019 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 notice dated 23.04.2025 issued by respondent No.4 as per Annexure-D is hereby set-aside. HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23019 (iii) Respondent - BBMP is hereby directed to issue Occupancy Certificate in accordance with law in compliance of the construction strictly adhering to the approved building plan. (iv) Respondent- BBMP is hereby directed to forthwith process the petitioner's application seeking occupancy certificate, strictly in accordance with law. (v) It is made clear that the issuance of occupancy certificate shall not be withheld merely on the ground that the BBMP is contemplating to file an appeal against the reported judgment. (vi) If occupancy certificate is 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 SMJ List No.: 2 Sl No.: 25
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.