Sri S. Talib Ahmed vs. The State Of Karnataka
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Sri. S. Talib Ahmed, filed a writ petition challenging Section 18-A(i) and (iv) of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961, as amended by Karnataka Act No. 23 of 2004. The petition also sought to quash a notification inserting Rules 37-A and 37-C, two circulars issued by Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP), a government order mandating upfront collection of labour welfare cess, and a demand notice from BBMP. The demand notice included charges for ground rent, GST on ground rent, betterment charges, license fees, scrutiny fees, and various cesses and surcharges. The petitioner sought to quash these levies and sought a direction to issue a sanction plan without insisting on these charges.
Held
The High Court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the impugned demand notice dated 11.02.2021 issued by respondent No. 5 (BBMP) as per Annexure-D. The Court directed the BBMP to issue a fresh or modified plan. Furthermore, the BBMP was directed to 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 building license and plan approval shall not be withheld due to the BBMP contemplating an appeal, but any such issuance would be subject to the outcome of any appeal filed by the BBMP. The Court's decision was based on the reasoning that the issues raised in the present petition were squarely covered by binding decisions of coordinate benches in 'M/s Sapthagiri Shelters' and 'Sunderam Shetty' cases, which had already adjudicated and settled similar controversies by setting aside relevant bye-laws and government circulars. The ratio decidendi is that where previous judgments have authoritatively settled the issues, a subsequent petition raising identical issues should be allowed in terms of the operative directions issued in those binding precedents.
Key Issues
1. Whether Section 18-A(i) and (iv) of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961, as amended, are ultra vires the Act? (Question of law) 2. Whether the inserted Rules 37-A and 37-C, and related government circulars and orders mandating specific levies and their collection, are illegal and without jurisdiction? (Question of law) Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the impugned provisions of the Act, rules, circulars, and government orders were illegal, without jurisdiction, and arbitrary. Specifically, they challenged the imposition of ground rent, GST on ground rent, betterment charges, license fees, scrutiny fees, and various cesses and surcharges, as detailed in the demand notice. The petitioner relied on previous judgments by coordinate benches of the High Court that had dealt with similar issues. Respondents' 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, Section 45-B
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Before: DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, DR. B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
Petitioner, in the captioned petition has sought for following reliefs : (i) 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-G1 insofar as Section 18-A(i) and (iv) of the Karnataka Act No. 23 of 2004 is concerned; (ii) 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-G insofar as the inserted Rule 37-A and 37-C is concerned; (iii) issue a writ or order by way of certiorari quashing the circular dated 04/09/2015, bearing No. Heninayo/JD(N)/DM3/PR/320/2015-16 issued by the Respondent No.4 (Annexure-E) in so far the Petitioner is concerned. HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23045 (iv) 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.4 (Annexure-H) in so far the Petitioner is concerned. (v) issue a writ or order by way of certiorari quashing the Government order bearing No.LD/300/LET/2006 dated 18/01/2007 and the corrigendum order bearing No.LD/300/LET/2006, dated 28/02/2007 issued by the Respondent No.2 mandating upfront collection of labour welfare cess (Annexure-F) in so far the Petitioner is concerned. (vi) issue a writ or order by way of certiorari quashing the demand notice dated 11/02/2021, bearing No.BBMP/Ad.Com/EST/1051/2020-21, issued by the Respondent No.5 (Annexure-D) for demanding in so far it is concerned to 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, 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. HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23045 (vii) issue a writ or order or direction by way of mandamus directing the Respondent No.4 and 5 BBMP to issue the sanction plan with respect to 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, Surcharge for formation outer ring road, Cess for improvement of slum, Surcharge for Mass Rapid Transport System, Labour cess and etc., and (viii) 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
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:23045
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:23045 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 notice dated 11.02.2021 issued by respondent No.5 as per Annexure-D 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. HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23045 (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 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.: 47
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.