Sri. Ajay Sundar vs. The State Of Karnataka
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Sri. Ajay Sundar, filed a writ petition challenging various provisions and notifications related to building plan sanction and fees. Specifically, he sought to quash Section 18-A of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961, certain rules and circulars issued by the State and Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP), and demand notes issued by the BBMP. These demand notes included charges like ground rent, GST on ground rent, betterment charges, revised license and scrutiny fees, and various cesses and surcharges. The petitioner sought directions to issue a sanction plan without these disputed charges and for the BBMP to process his application for a building license and sanction plan in accordance with law.
Held
The Court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the impugned demand notice dated 01.03.2021 issued by respondent No.5 (Annexure-D). The Court directed respondent-BBMP to issue a fresh/modified plan as the case may be and to forthwith process the petitioner’s application seeking a building license and sanction of the building plan strictly in accordance with law. It was clarified that the issuance of the building license and approval of the plan shall not be withheld due to the BBMP contemplating an appeal, but any license and plan issued would be subject to the outcome of any appeal filed by the BBMP. The Court relied on previous binding decisions of co-ordinate benches in W.P.No.23086/2022 (M/s Sapthagiri Shelters) and W.P.No.36017/2018 (Sunderam Shetty), which had comprehensively adjudicated similar issues, declared certain levies ultra vires, and quashed relevant government circulars and bye-laws. The ratio decidendi is that issues already settled by binding precedents of co-ordinate benches do not warrant separate adjudication and should be followed.
Key Issues
1. Whether Section 18-A of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961, inserted by Karnataka Act No.23 of 2004, is liable to be quashed? 2. Whether the Notification dated 25.2.2020, inserting Rules 37-A and 37-C, and the Circular dated 4.9.2015 issued by the 4th respondent (BBMP) are liable to be quashed? 3. Whether the Circular dated 14.8.2020 issued by the 4th respondent, the Government Order dated 18.1.2007 and its corrigendum dated 28.2.2007 issued by the 2nd respondent, and the Demand Notes dated 1.3.2021 issued by the 5th respondent (Assistant Director of Town Planning) are illegal, without jurisdiction, and arbitrary, particularly concerning the demand of ground rent, GST on ground rent, betterment charges, revised license and scrutiny fees, and various cesses and surcharges? Petitioner's Contentions: The petitioner argued that the aforementioned provisions, notifications, circulars, and demand notes were illegal, without jurisdiction, and arbitrary. He sought to quash them and obtain a building plan sanction without these disputed charges. Respondents' Contentions: The judgment does not record specific contentions from the respondents. However, it notes that the issues raised were comprehensively adjudicated by co-ordinate benches in previous writ petitions.
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, the petitioner respectfully prays that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to call for relevant records from the respondents, and; i) Issue a writ of certiorari or grant an order or direction, quashing Section 18-A of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961, inserted by way of Karnataka Act No.23 of 2004 (Karnataka Town and Country Planning (Amendment) Act, 1998), vide Annexure-G1, and; ii) Issue a writ of certiorari or grant an order or direction, quashing the Notification issued by the 1st respondent bearing No.UDD 3 TTP 2015 dated 25.2.2020 vide Annexure-G, insofar as HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21732 insertion of Rules 37-A and 37-C are concerned, and; iii) Issue a writ of certiorari or grant an order or direction, quashing the Circular dated 4.9.2015 bearing No.HENINAYO/JD(N) /DM3/PR/320/ 2015-16 issued by 4th respondent vide Annexure-E, insofar as the petitioner is concerned, and; iv) Issue a writ of certiorari or grant an order or direction, quashing the Circular dated 14.8.2020 bearing No.HE.ΝΙ.ΚΑ.ΡΑ.ΚΟ/ P.R/320/2020-21 issued by the 4th respondent vide Annexure-H, insofar as the petitioner is concerned, and; v) Issue a writ of certiorari or grant an order or direction, quashing the Government Order bearing No.LD/300/LET/2006 dated 18.1.2007 and the Corrigendum bearing No.LD/300/LET/2006 dated 28.2.2007 issued by the 2nd respondent, vide Annexure-F and F1, insofar as the petitioner is concerned, and; vi) Issue a writ of certiorari or grant an order or direction, quashing the Demand Notes (Challan / Memo) both dated 1.3.2021 issued by the 5th respondent bearing No.BBMP/EODB/CH/ 13382/20-21 and No.BBMP/EODB/CH/13383 HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21732 /20-21 vide Annexures-D and D1, insofar as it relates demand of ground rent, GST on ground rent, betterment charges for building, betterment charges for site, revised license fee, revised scrutiny fees, c3ess for water supply scheme, surcharge for formation of outer ring road, cess for improvement of slum, surcharge for MRTS, Labour Cess and etc. as illegal, without juri iction and arbitrary. vii) Issue a writ of mandamus or grant an order or direction, directing the 4th and 5th respondents to issue the sanction plan for construction of the building in the schedule property without insisting for ground rent, GST on ground rent, betterment charges for building, betterment charges for site, revised license fee, revised scrutiny fees, cess for water supply scheme, surcharge for formation of outer ring road, cess for improvement of slum, surcharge for MRTS, Labour Cess and etc., and; viii) Grant such other relief/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:21732
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 related Circulars and declared Clause 3.8 of the BBMP HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21732 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 01.03.2021 issued by respondent No.5 as per Annexure-D is hereby set-aside. HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21732 (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.: 26
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.