Sri.H.Venkoba Rao vs. The State Of Karnataka
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioners, Sri. H. Venkoba Rao and Smt. S. Kavitha, filed a writ petition seeking to quash Section 18-A(i) and (iv) of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961 (as amended), various notifications and circulars related to building plan sanction, and a demand notice issued by the Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike (BBMP). The demand notice included charges for Ground Rent, GST on Ground Rent, Betterment Charges, Revised License Fee, Revised Scrutiny Fee, and Labour Cess. The petitioners also sought a direction to process their building plan application without insisting on these charges. The High Court noted that similar issues had been comprehensively adjudicated by coordinate benches in previous cases, specifically "M/s Sapthagiri Shelters" and "Sunderam Shetty".
Held
The Court held that the issues raised in the present writ petition were squarely covered by the binding decisions of coordinate benches in "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 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 to market/guidance value, and related circulars and Clause 3.8 of the BBMP Building Bye-laws, 2003, pertaining to Ground Rent, were declared invalid. Consequently, the present petition did not warrant separate adjudication and was liable to be allowed in terms of the operative directions issued in the aforesaid writ petitions. The impugned demand notice dated 24.12.2020 was set aside, and the BBMP was directed to issue a fresh/modified plan and forthwith process the petitioner’s application for building license and sanction of the building plan strictly in accordance with law.
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 ultra vires the Constitution and liable to be quashed? The petitioners argued that these provisions, along with subsequent notifications and circulars, lead to illegal levies. 2. Whether the levies of Ground Rent, License Fee, Building License Fee, and Scrutiny Fee under the relevant bye-laws, as well as the linking of 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, are illegal and ultra vires? The petitioners contended that these levies and the method of calculation were arbitrary and without jurisdiction. 3. Whether the demand notice dated 24.12.2020, issued by the 5th respondent (Assistant Director, Town Planning, BBMP), demanding Ground Rent, GST on Ground Rent, Betterment Charges, Revised License Fee, Revised Scrutiny Fee, and Labour Cess, is illegal and liable to be quashed? The petitioners sought to quash this notice and prevent the respondents from insisting on these charges for processing their building plan application. The Revenue did not present arguments as the matter was decided based on previous judgments.
Sections Cited
Section 18-A, Rule 37-A, Section 45-B
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Before: SMT. S.KAVITHA DR. B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
Petitioners, in the captioned petition has sought for following reliefs : (i) Issue a Writ of Certiorari, similar Writ, Order or Direction quashing Section 18-A of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961 brought into effect by Karnataka Act No.23 of 2004 (Karnataka Town and Country Planning (Amendment) Act, 1998) as contained in ANNEXURE-J in so far as Section 18-A(i) and (iv) of the Karnataka Act No.23 of 2004 is concerned. (ii) Issue a Writ of Certiorari, similar Writ, Order or Direction quashing the Notification issued by the 1st Respondent bearing No. UDD 3 TPP 2015 dated 25-02-2020 as contained in ANNEXURE-H in so far as the inserted Rules 37-A and 37-C is concerned. (iii) Issue a Writ of Certiorari, similar Writ, Order or Direction quashing the circular dated 04-09- 2015, bearing No. Heninayo/JD(N)/DM3/PR/ 320/2015-16 issued by the 4th Respondent as contained in ANNEXURE-F in so far the Petitioners are concerned. HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23037 (iv) Issue a Writ of Certiorari, similar Writ, Order or Direction quashing the Circular dated 14-08-2020, bearing No. He.Ni.Ka. Pa.Ko/PR/320/2020-21 issued by the 4th Respondent as contained in ANNEXURE-K in so far the Petitioners are concerned. (v) Issue a Writ of Certiorari, similar Writ, Order or Direction 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 2nd Respondent mandating upfront collection of Labour Welfare Cess as contained in ANNEXURE-G in so far the Petitioners are concerned. (vi) Issue a Writ of Certiorari, similar Writ, Order or Direction quashing the Demand Notice dated 24-12-2020 bearing No.BBMP/Ad.Com/BMH/0278/20-21, issued by the 5th Respondent as contained in ANNEXURE-E 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, Labour Cess and HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23037 etc., as illegal without juri iction and Arbitrary. (vii) Issue a Writ of Mandamus, similar Writ, Order or Direction and direct the Respondent Nos.4 and 5 to process the application for Sanction of Building Plan for construction of Commercial/Hostel Building in the Schedule Property without insisting the Ground Rent, GST on Ground Rent, Betterment Charges for Building, Betterment Charges for the Site, Excess Security Deposit, Revised License Fee, Revised Scrutiny Fee, Laour Cess and etc.,. and (viii) Pass such other Order/s as this Hon'ble Court deems fit to grant 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. HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23037
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:23037 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 24.12.2020 issued by respondent No.5 as per Annexure-E 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:23037 (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.: 39
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.