Dr K M Suresh vs. The State Of Karnataka
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioners, Dr. K M Suresh and Smt. Lepakshi N, filed a writ petition challenging Section 18-A of the Karnataka Town & Country Planning Act, 1961, as amended, and various notifications and circulars issued by the State of Karnataka and the Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike (BBMP). Specifically, they sought to quash provisions related to the collection of labour welfare cess, ground rent, GST on ground rent, betterment charges, license fees, scrutiny fees, and other charges demanded by the BBMP through a notice dated 03/02/2021. The petitioners sought a direction to issue a sanction plan for their building construction 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 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 the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957. Clause 3.8 of the BBMP Building Bye-laws, 2003, pertaining to Ground Rent, was also 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 03.02.2021 was set aside. BBMP was directed to issue a fresh/modified plan and 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 pending any appeal by BBMP, but would be subject to the outcome of such appeal.
Key Issues
1. Whether Section 18-A(i) and (iv) of the Karnataka Town & Country Planning Act, 1961, as amended by Karnataka Act No. 23 of 2004, are ultra vires the Constitution of India and the parent Act? (Question of law) 2. Whether the Notification No. UDD 3 TTP 2015 dated 25/02/2020, inserting Rules 37-A and 37-C into the Karnataka Planning Authority Rules, 1965, is illegal and arbitrary? (Question of law) 3. Whether the circular dated 04/09/2015 issued by Respondent No.4, and the circular dated 14/08/2020 issued by Respondent No.4, are without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed? (Question of law) 4. Whether the Government Order No.LD/300/LET/2006 dated 18/01/2007 and its corrigendum are illegal, mandating upfront collection of labour welfare cess? (Question of law) 5. Whether the demand notice dated 03/02/2021 issued by Respondent No.5, demanding various charges including ground rent, GST on ground rent, betterment charges, license fees, scrutiny fees, and cess, is illegal, without jurisdiction, and arbitrary? (Question of mixed law and fact) Petitioner's Contention: The petitioners argued that the impugned provisions, notifications, and circulars are illegal, without jurisdiction, and arbitrary, and that the demand notice is unsustainable. They relied on previous judgments of the High Court that had dealt with similar issues. Respondents' Contention: The judgment does not record specific arguments from the respondents. However, it notes that the issues raised are covered by previous binding decisions.
Sections Cited
Section 18-A, Rule 37-A, Rule 37-C
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 HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21729 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 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 03/02/2021 bearing No.BBMP/Ad.Com/SUT/1208/20-21, HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21729 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 for construction of the Building in the Schedule Property without insisting the 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., and viii) pass any such other order(s) as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21729 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 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 HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21729 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. (ii) The impugned demand notice dated 03.02.2021 issued by respondent No.5 as per Annexure-D is hereby set-aside. HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21729 (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. (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE
VMB List No.: 2 Sl No.: 23
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.