Mr. Dandu Dilip Kumar Reddy vs. The State Of Karnataka
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioners, represented by their GPA holder, filed a writ petition challenging Section 18-A of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961, as amended, and certain notifications and circulars issued by the State of Karnataka and the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP). Specifically, they sought to quash provisions related to the collection of various charges and fees, including ground rent, GST on ground rent, betterment charges, license fees, scrutiny fees, service charges on labour cess, and other levies. A demand notice dated July 6, 2021, issued by the Assistant Director (Town Planning-East), BBMP, for these charges was also challenged. The petitioners sought a direction to issue a sanction plan for their residential apartment building without insisting on these disputed charges.
Held
The Court held that the issues raised in the present writ petition are squarely covered by previous binding decisions of coordinate benches. Specifically, in the case of '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 quashed. Similarly, 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. All related circulars were also quashed, and Clause 3.8 of the BBMP Building Bye-laws, 2003, pertaining to Ground Rent, was declared invalid. Consequently, the present petition did not warrant separate adjudication and was allowed. The impugned demand notice dated July 6, 2021, was set aside, and BBMP was directed to issue a fresh/modified plan and process the building license application strictly in accordance with law. The issuance of the license and plan approval would be subject to the outcome of any appeal filed by BBMP.
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? The petitioners argued that these provisions, along with subsequent rules and circulars, are illegal and arbitrary, leading to the imposition of unjustified charges. They relied on previous judgments of coordinate benches of the High Court that had dealt with similar issues. The respondents, including the State of Karnataka and BBMP, did not present specific arguments against the petitioners' claims but were represented by their respective counsels. The court noted that the issues were squarely covered by prior binding decisions. 2. Whether the notification dated February 25, 2020, inserting Rules 37-A and 37-C under the Karnataka Planning Authority Rules, 1965, is illegal? The petitioners contended that linking fees to market/guidance value under Section 45-B of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957, as done through these rules, is unlawful. This contention was supported by previous judgments that had struck down similar provisions. The respondents did not offer a counter-argument.
Sections Cited
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
The captioned petition is filed seeking for the following reliefs:
"WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to: 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 HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21779 /320/2015-16 issued by the Respondent No.4 (Annexure-E) in so far the Petitioners are 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 Respondent No.4 (Annexure-H) in so far the Petitioners are 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 Petitioners are concerned. vi) issue a writ or order by way of certiorari quashing the demand notice dated 06/07/2021 bearing No. BBMP/Ad.Com/EST/0138/21-22, 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, revised License fee, revised scrutiny fee, excess Security Deposit, 1% service charges on labour cess to BBMP, Cess for water supply scheme, Surcharge for HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21779 formation outer ring road, Cess for improvement of slum, Surcharge for Mass Rapid Transport System, 5% Levy service charges payable to BBMP, 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 for construction of the residential apartment Building in the Schedule Property without insisting the Ground rent, GST on Ground rent, Betterment charges for building, revised License fee, revised scrutiny fee, excess Security Deposit, 1% service charges on labour cess to BBMP, Cess for water supply scheme, Surcharge for formation outer ring road, Cess for improvement of slum, Surcharge for Mass Rapid Transport System, 5% Levy service charges payable to BBMP, 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." HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21779
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 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 HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21779 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 operative directions issued in the aforesaid writ petitions.
Accordingly, this Court proceeds to pass the following: ORDER (i) The writ petition is allowed. HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21779 (ii) The impugned demand notice dated 06.07.2021 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 outcome of any appeal that may be filed by the BBMP against the said judgment. HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21779 Pending applications, if any, are also disposed off. (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE
VMB 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.