Sri G Jayarama Reddy vs. The State Of Karnataka
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioners, Sri G Jayarama Reddy and others, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Karnataka challenging various provisions of the Karnataka Town & Country Planning Act, 1961, as amended, and subsequent notifications, circulars, and government orders. Specifically, they sought to quash Section 18-A(i) and (iv) of the Karnataka Act No. 23 of 2004, Rule 37-A and 37-C inserted by Notification No. UDD 3 TTP 2015, circulars issued by Bruhath Bangalore Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) dated 04/09/2015 and 14/08/2020, and a government order dated 18/01/2007 mandating upfront collection of labour welfare cess. They also challenged a demand notice dated 01/01/2021 from BBMP for various charges including ground rent, GST on ground rent, betterment charges, and labour cess, and sought a mandamus to issue a sanction plan without these charges.
Held
The Court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the impugned demand notice dated 01/01/2021 issued by respondent No.5 (BBMP) as per Annexure-D. The Court directed the BBMP to issue a fresh/modified plan as the case may be. Respondents No.4 and 5 were directed to forthwith process the petitioner's application seeking a building license and sanction of the building plan strictly in accordance with law. The Court clarified 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 an appeal against the reported judgment. However, if issued, the license and plan shall be subject to the outcome of any appeal that may be filed by the BBMP. The Court's decision was based on the reasoning that the issues raised were squarely covered by previous binding decisions of coordinate benches in W.P.No.23086/2022 (M/s Sapthagiri Shelters) and W.P.No.36017/2018 (Sunderam Shetty), which had declared certain levies as ultra vires and quashed related circulars and bye-laws.
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 Act? 2. Whether Rule 37-A and 37-C of the Karnataka Planning Authority Rules, 1965, linking fees to market/guidance value under Section 45-B of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957, are illegal? 3. Whether the circulars and government orders mandating upfront collection of labour welfare cess and other charges are arbitrary and without jurisdiction? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioners contended that the impugned provisions, notifications, circulars, and demand notice were illegal, without jurisdiction, and arbitrary, seeking their quashing. They relied on previous judgments of coordinate benches of the High Court that had dealt with similar issues concerning levies under bye-laws and government circulars. Revenue/State's 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 18-A, 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 /320/ 2015-16 issued by the Respondent No.4 HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21725 (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.L.D/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 01/01/2021 bearing No.BBMP/Ad.Com/YLK/ 0519/20-21, 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 HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21725 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 residential apartment 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 of the case in the interest of justice and equity." HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21725
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 Shettyand 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. 3. Similarly, in M/s Sapthagiri Sheltersand 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 related Circulars and declared HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21725 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 01.01.2021 issued by respondent No.5 as per Annexure-D is hereby set-aside. HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21725 (iii) Respondent -BBMP is hereby directed to issue fresh/modified plan as the case may be. (iv) Respondent Nos.4 and 5 are 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 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.: 20
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.