Mr Raja Jayashankar vs. State Of Karnataka
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioners, represented by their General Power of Attorney, Puravankara Limited, filed a writ petition challenging Bye-Law 3.9 of the Bangalore Mahanagara Palike Building Bye-Laws, 2003, along with several notifications and circulars issued by various state authorities. The petitioners sought to quash these provisions and a demand notice dated February 10, 2021, issued by the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP), which included demands for Ground Rent, License Fee, Scrutiny Fee, Betterment fees, and surcharges. The core of the challenge was that these levies were unconstitutional, arbitrary, illegal, and ultra-vires. The petition also sought directions to issue a building license and sanction plan without insisting on these payments.
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', the levies of Ground Rent, License Fee, Building License Fee, and Scrutiny Fee under the relevant bye-laws were declared ultra vires the Act, and related government circulars were quashed. Furthermore, 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 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, was illegal. 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 was set aside, and the BBMP was directed to issue a fresh/modified plan and process the application for building license and sanction strictly in accordance with law, without withholding it based on a potential appeal. Any license or plan issued would be subject to the outcome of any appeal filed by the BBMP.
Key Issues
1. Whether Bye-Law 3.9 of the Bangalore Mahanagara Palike Building Bye-Laws, 2003, is unconstitutional, arbitrary, illegal, and ultra-vires the relevant Act? 2. Whether the Notification dated February 25, 2020, inserting Rules 37-A and 37-C, is liable to be quashed? 3. Whether the Circular dated August 14, 2020, issued by Respondent No. 4 is liable to be quashed? 4. Whether the Circular dated September 04, 2015, issued by Respondent No. 2, concerning the levy and collection of 'Licence Fee', is liable to be quashed? 5. Whether the Impugned Demand Notice dated February 10, 2021, issued by Respondent No. 5, demanding various charges including Ground Rent, License Fee, Scrutiny Fee, Betterment fees, and surcharges, is liable to be quashed? Petitioners' arguments: The petitioners argued that the impugned bye-laws, notifications, and circulars were unconstitutional, arbitrary, illegal, and ultra-vires. They sought to quash these provisions and the demand notice, and to direct the authorities to issue the building license and sanction plan without demanding the disputed fees. Respondents' arguments: The judgment does not record specific arguments from the respondents. However, it notes that the issues raised were squarely covered by previous binding decisions.
Sections Cited
Section 45-B, Rule 37-A, Bye-Law 3.9
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, the Petitioners most respectfully prays that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to: a) Grant an order, direction or writ in the nature of Certiorari quashing Bye-Law 3.9 of the Bangalore Mahanagara Palike Building Bye- HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21733 Laws, 2003 as unconstitutional, arbitrary, illegal and ultra-vires, in the interest of justice and equity; b) Grant an order, direction or writ in the nature of Certiorari quashing the Notification issued by the Respondent No. 2 bearing No. UDD 3 TPP 2015 dated February 25, 2020 (Annexure G) insofar as the inserted Rules 37-A and 37-C are concerned; c) Grant an order, direction or writ in the nature of Certiorari quashing the circular dated August 14, 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. d) Grant an order, direction or writ in the nature of Certiorari quashing the Circular bearing No. He.Ni.Na.Yo/JD(N)/DM3/PR/320/2015-16 dated September 04, 2015 (Annexure J) issued by the Respondent No.2 is so far as levy and collection of "Licence Fee'; e) Grant a Writ or order or direction, in the nature of Certiorari, quashing the Impugned Demand Notice bearing BBMP/Addl.Dir/JD South/0173/14-15 dated February 10, 2021 by HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21733 the Respondent No. 5 (Annexure A) as regards the demand made for :- • Ground Rent at Serial No. 1; • Ground Rent for Renovation at Serial No. 3; • License Fee for Site Area at Serial No. 5; • Scrutiny Fee at Serial No. 6; • Betterment fees for Construction at Serial No.7; • Betterment Fees for Building at Serial No. 8; • Levy and Collection of 5% surcharge to be paid to BBMP at Serial No. 9; • Building commencement certificate fees at Serial No. 10; • Levy and Collection of surcharge to be paid to BWSSB, BDA and KSCB at Serial No. 11; f) Grant an order, direction or writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 BBMP to issue the sanction plan for construction of the Project in the Property, without insisting payment of Ground Rent, GST on Ground Rent, Betterment Charges for Building, Betterment Charges for Site, License fee, Scrutiny fee, Cess for Water Supply HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21733 Scheme, Surcharge for Formation Outer Ring Road, Surcharge for Mass Rapid Transport System, and etc., and g) Grant such other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the above circumstances of the case, in the interests 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 HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21733 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 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:21733 (ii) The impugned demand notice dated 10.02.2021 issued by respondent No.5 as per Annexure-A 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:21733 Pending applications, if any, are also disposed off. (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE
VMB List No.: 2 Sl No.: 27
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.