Sri Varun Ram Mirlay vs. The State Of Karnataka
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Sri. Varun Ram Mirlay, filed a writ petition seeking to quash Section 18-A(i) and (iv) of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961, as amended by Karnataka Act No. 23 of 2004. He also sought to quash notifications and circulars related to the collection of various charges and cess, including labour welfare cess, ground rent, betterment charges, and GST on ground rent. The petitioner challenged a demand notice dated January 12, 2021, issued by the Assistant Director, Town Planning (East), Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike (BBMP), for these charges. The petitioner sought a direction to the BBMP to issue a sanctioned building plan without insisting on these charges.
Held
The Court allowed the writ petition, holding that the issues raised were squarely covered by binding decisions of coordinate benches in "M/s Sapthagiri Shelters" and "Sunderam Shetty". In "Sunderam Shetty", the levies of Ground Rent, License Fee, Building License Fee, and Scrutiny Fee under relevant bye-laws were declared ultra vires the Act and related 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 illegally 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. Related circulars were quashed, and Clause 3.8 of the BBMP Building Bye-laws, 2003, pertaining to Ground Rent, was declared invalid. Consequently, the impugned demand notice dated January 12, 2021, issued by respondent No. 5 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 issuance of the license and plan approval was not to be withheld due to any contemplated appeal by the BBMP, but would be subject to the outcome of any such appeal.
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? 2. Whether the notification inserting Rules 37-A and 37-C into the Karnataka Planning Authority Rules, 1965, are illegal, particularly concerning the linking of fees to market/guidance value under the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957? 3. Whether the circulars and government orders mandating the upfront collection of labour welfare cess, ground rent, license fee, building license fee, and scrutiny fee are illegal and without jurisdiction? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the impugned provisions, notifications, circulars, and government orders were illegal, without jurisdiction, and arbitrary. He relied on previous judgments by coordinate benches of the High Court in "M/s Sapthagiri Shelters" and "Sunderam Shetty" which had comprehensively adjudicated similar issues and set aside relevant bye-laws and government circulars. Respondents' Arguments: The judgment does not record specific arguments from the respondents. However, the court's decision indicates that the respondents were likely defending the validity of the impugned provisions and demand notices.
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. 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 HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22985 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 12/01/2021, bearing No.BBMP/Ad.Com/EST /1078/2020-21, 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. 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, HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22985 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.
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. and HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22985
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 adjudication and is liable to be allowed in terms of the HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22985 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 12.01.2021 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. (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:22985 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.: 3
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.