Sri. M Babu vs. State Of Karnataka
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioners, Sri. M. Babu and two others, filed a writ petition challenging a demand notice dated 07/12/2024 issued by the Assistant Director, Town Planning South Zone-8, Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP). The notice demanded various fees, including scrutiny fee, license fee, ground rent, GST, lake rejuvenation fee, betterment levy, water supply cess, ring road surcharge, slum improvement cess, MRTS surcharge, and security deposit. The petitioners sought to quash this demand notice and declare certain bye-laws unconstitutional. The High Court noted that the core issue was substantially covered by a coordinate bench's judgment in W.P.No.23086/2022 and connected matters.
Held
The High Court allowed the writ petition, aligning its decision with the operative portion of the judgment in W.P.No.23086/2022 and connected matters. The Court held that the core issue raised in the present petition was squarely covered by the binding judgment of the coordinate bench. Consequently, the impugned demand notice dated 07.12.2024 issued by respondent No.3 (Assistant Director, Town Planning South Zone-8, BBMP) was set aside. The Court directed the BBMP 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. It was clarified that the issuance of the license and plan approval shall not be withheld due to any contemplation of an appeal against the reported judgment, but would be subject to the outcome of any such appeal. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.
Key Issues
1. Whether the demand notice dated 07/12/2024, issued by the Assistant Director, Town Planning South Zone-8, BBMP, demanding various fees including GST, is liable to be quashed in light of the judgment in W.P.No.23086/2022 and connected matters? (Question of law and fact, turning on the applicability of the prior judgment and the legality of the demanded fees). 2. Whether Bye-law No.3.9 in the Bangalore Mahanagara Palike Building Bye-laws, 2003, is unconstitutional, arbitrary, illegal, and ultravires? (Question of law, turning on the validity of the bye-law). Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioners contended that the demand notice and the levies therein were illegal and unconstitutional, relying on the coordinate bench's decision in W.P.No.23086/2022, which had quashed similar amendments and bye-laws. They sought directions to issue the building plan and license without insisting on payment of the disputed amounts. Revenue/State's Arguments: The judgment does not record specific arguments from the respondents. However, the court's decision was based on the precedent set by the coordinate bench.
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. SUSHEELA DR.AMBEDKARVEEDHI,
Petitioners, in the captioned petition has sought for following reliefs : "a) Issue a writ of certiorari or similar writ or order or direction to quash the demand notice No.BBMP/EODB/CH/38382/2024-25 dated 07/12/2024 at Annexure - B issued by the respondent No.3 in so far as the demand of Rs.37,816/- towards Scrutiny Fee, License Fee of Rs 7,54,169/-, Ground Rent & GST of Rs 6,99,222, Lake Rejuvenation Fee of Rs 13,025, Fee U/s 18(1) of KTCP (Betterment Levy) for Building Rs 1,69,600, Fee U/s 18(1) of KTCP (Betterment Levy) for site of Rs.4,13,707 Water Supply Cess of Rs 41,370.70, Ring Road surcharge of 41,370.70 and Cess for Improvement of Slums 20,685, MRTS Surcharge of Rs 2,06,853 & Security Deposit of Rs 1,69,600. b) Issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction declaring that Bye-law No.3.9 in the Bangalore Mahanagara Palike Building Bye-laws, 2003 framed under the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act as unconstitutional, arbitrary, illegal and ultravires; HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22991 c) Issue writ of mandamus or similar writ or order or direction directing the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to issue building plan and license pursuant to the demand notice No. BBMP/EODB/CH/38382/2024-25 dated 07/12/2024 at Annexure - B issued by the respondent No.3 without insisting for payment of amount mentioned above. d) Issue any other appropriate writ or order or direction deemed fit in the 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; HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22991 "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 HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22991 the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957, is illegal. However, 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 HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22991 unequivocal terms, quashed and set aside the Karnataka 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 HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22991 Circulars and demand notices issued to give effect to such 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. HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22991 (ii) The impugned demand notice dated 07.12.2024 issued by respondent No.4 as per Annexure-B is hereby set-aside. (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.: 9
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.