Mr. Y. R. Anil vs. The State Of Karnataka
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioners, Mr. Y.R. Anil and Mrs. Y. Kalpana, represented by their GPA holder M/s Embassy Property Developments Private Limited, filed a writ petition challenging Bye-law No. 3.9 of the Bangalore Mahanagara Palike Building Bye-laws, 2003, and amendments to the Karnataka Planning Authority Rules, 1962. They also challenged a demand notice dated October 7, 2020, issued by the Joint Director, Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP), demanding various charges including Ground Rent, GST on Ground Rent, Betterment Tax, Security Deposit, License Fee, and several other cesses and surcharges. These demands were made as a pre-requisite for the issuance of a sanction plan for a commercial building and multi-level car parking project.
Held
The High Court of Karnataka, in this writ petition, relied on a coordinate bench's decision in W.P.No.23086/2022 and connected matters. The coordinate bench had partly allowed writ petitions, quashing and setting aside the Karnataka Municipal Corporations and Certain Other Law (Amendment) Acts of 2021 and 2023. 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 plans for plots exceeding 20,000 square meters. The court also held that if fees were previously collected for change of land use or layout plan approval, no further fee should be levied for subsequent development plans. The linkage of levies to market or guidance value was declared illegal, and all impugned circulars and demand notices were quashed. Clause 3.8 of the BBMP Building Bye-laws, 2003, concerning 'Ground Rent', was also struck down. Consequently, the impugned demand notice in the present case was set aside.
Key Issues
1. Whether Bye-law No. 3.9 of the Bangalore Mahanagara Palike Building Bye-laws, 2003, is unconstitutional, illegal, and ultra vires? 2. Whether the amendment of Rule 37-A and insertion of Rule 37-C in the Karnataka Planning Authority Rules, 1962, by the Karnataka Planning Authorities (Amendment) Rules, 2019, relating to the levy of fees, cess, and surcharges for development plans, are ultra vires of Sections 18 and 18-A of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961? Petitioners' arguments: The petitioners sought to declare the aforementioned bye-laws and rules unconstitutional and illegal. They also sought to quash the demand notice issued by the BBMP, arguing that the levies were unlawful. Respondents' arguments: The judgment does not explicitly record arguments from the respondents. However, it notes that the issue was dealt with by a coordinate bench in a reported judgment.
Sections Cited
Section 18, Section 18-A, Rule 37-A, Rule 37-C, Section 45-B
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORAL ORDER Petitioners, in the captioned petition has sought for following reliefs :
Issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ, order or direction, declaring the Bye law No.3.9 of the Bangalore Mahanagara Palike Building Bye-laws 2003 (ANNEXURE-A) as unconstitutional, illegal and ultra vires;
Issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ, order or direction, declaring that the amendment of Rule 37-A, and insertion of Rule 37-C, in the Karnataka Planning Authority Rules, 1962, ("KPA Rules") by way of The Karnataka Planning Authorities (Amendment) Rules, 2019., vide Notification No.UDD3 TTP 2015 dated 25/02/2020 issued by Respondent No.1 (Annexure-B), relating to levy of fees, cess and surchages for issuance of development plans, is ultra vires of the Sections 18, 18-A of the KTCP Act, and consequently quash/set aside the same; and 3. Issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, quashing the Demand Notice at Annexure-C dated 07-10-2020 bearing No. BBMP/Addl.Dir/JD-Central/0014/19-20 issued by Respondent No.5 demanding :- Rs.1,46,31,330/- towards Ground Rent; HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22989 Rs.26,33,639/- towards GST on the said ground rent; Rs.71,58,577/- and Rs.2,11,48,095/- towards Betterment Tax; Rs.71,58,577/- towards Security Deposit; Rs.1,86,21,692/- towards License Fee; Rs.9,31,085/- towards Scrutiny fee; Rs.1,08,103/- towards the labour cess; Rs.1,29,000/- towards Plan Copies fee; Rs.20,000/- towards Compound wall fee; Rs.7,04,937/- towards 5% of Service Charges on Levy and Surcharge; and Rs.28,19,746/- towards Cess for Water supply scheme; Rs.28,19,746/- towards Surcharge for formation of Ring Road; Rs.14,09,873/- towards cess for Improving Slums; Rs.70,49,365/- towards surcharge for establishing Mass Rapid Transport System; and Rs.1,07,03,000/- towards the Building and other construction workers welfare cess; as a pre-requisite condition for issuance of sanction plan for construction of Commercial Building (Office) and MLCP (Multi Level Car Parking) sought for by Petitioners in relation to the proposed HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22989 commercial building project in the Schedule Property; and 4. Grant such other and further relief as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of 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; "ORDER (i) The writ petitions are partly allowed. HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22989 (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, liberty is reserved to the respondent-State Government HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22989 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:22989 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:22989 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 07.10.2020 issued by respondent No.5 as per Annexure-C is hereby set-aside. HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22989 (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. (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 SMJ List No.: 2 Sl No.: 7
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.