Sri Jagadish H Choudhary vs. The State Of Karnataka
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioners, Sri Jagadish H Choudhary and Sri Kalpesh H Choudary, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Karnataka challenging various provisions of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961, and related notifications, circulars, and government orders. Specifically, they sought to quash Section 18-A(i) and (iv) of the Act, inserted by Karnataka Act No. 23 of 2004, as well as notifications introducing Rules 37-A and 37-C, and circulars issued by the Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) concerning labour welfare cess and other charges. The petitioners also challenged a demand notice dated December 21, 2020, issued by the Assistant Director, Town Planning (South), BBMP, for various levies including ground rent, GST on ground rent, betterment charges, and labour cess. They sought a direction to issue a sanction plan for their residential building without insisting on these charges.
Held
The High Court allowed the writ petition. The Court noted that similar issues concerning the levies of Ground Rent, License Fee, Building License Fee, and Scrutiny Fee under 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, have been comprehensively adjudicated by coordinate benches. In the case of 'M/s Sapthagiri Shelters', the court struck down Karnataka Act No. 01 of 2022 and Karnataka Act No. 37 of 2024, holding the linkage of fees to market/guidance value as illegal, and quashed related circulars and Clause 3.8 of the BBMP Building Bye-laws, 2003, pertaining to Ground Rent. The present petition's issues were found to be squarely covered by these binding decisions. Consequently, the impugned demand notice dated December 21, 2020, was set aside, and the BBMP was directed to issue a fresh/modified plan and process the petitioner's application for building license and sanction of the building plan strictly in accordance with law, without withholding it due to any contemplated appeal. The issuance of the license and plan would be subject to the outcome of any appeal filed by the 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 Constitution. 2. Whether the notifications introducing Rules 37-A and 37-C under the Karnataka Planning Authority Rules, 1965, are illegal. 3. Whether the circulars issued by the BBMP demanding labour welfare cess and other charges are without jurisdiction. 4. Whether the demand notice dated December 21, 2020, issued by the BBMP for various levies including ground rent, GST on ground rent, betterment charges, and labour cess is illegal and arbitrary. The petitioners argued that the impugned provisions, notifications, circulars, and demand notice are illegal, without jurisdiction, and arbitrary, and sought their quashing. The respondents, including the State of Karnataka and the BBMP, did not present specific arguments in the judgment, but the court referred to previous binding decisions.
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 TPP HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21735 2015 dated 25/02/2020 & 23-10-2020 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 21-12-2020, bearing No.BBMP/Ad.Com /EST/1008/20-21, issued by the Respondent HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21735 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 Residential Multi Dwelling Units 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:21735 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:21735 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 21.12.2020 issued by respondent No.5 as per Annexure-D is hereby set-aside. HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21735 (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.
Pending applications, if any, are also disposed off. (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE
VMB List No.: 2 Sl No.: 29
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.