Mr. B K Revathi Kumar vs. State Of Karnataka
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioners, Mr. B.K. Revathi Kumar and Mrs. N. Pushpa, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Karnataka challenging Bye-Law 3.9 of the Bangalore Mahanagara Palike Building Bye-Laws, 2003, and various notifications and circulars related to building plan sanction and fee collection. The petitioners sought to quash these provisions and a demand notice issued by the Assistant Director (Town Planning-East), BBMP. The demand notice included charges such as Scrutiny Fee, License Fee, Ground Rent, Betterment Fees, Site Development Charges, and Labour Cess. The petitioners sought a direction to issue a sanction plan without insisting on these payments. The respondents included the State of Karnataka, various departments, and the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) and its officials.
Held
The High Court allowed the writ petition. The Court noted that co-ordinate benches of the same High Court had previously adjudicated similar issues in W.P. No. 23086/2022 (M/s Sapthagiri Shelters) and W.P. No. 36017/2018 (Sunderam Shetty). In Sunderam Shetty, levies of Ground Rent, License Fee, Building License Fee, and Scrutiny Fee under relevant bye-laws were declared ultra-vires, and related government circulars were quashed. In M/s Sapthagiri Shelters, Karnataka Acts linking fees to market/guidance value were struck down, and Clause 3.8 of the BBMP Building Bye-laws, 2003, pertaining to Ground Rent, was declared invalid. The Court found that the issues in the present petition were squarely covered by these binding decisions. Consequently, the impugned demand notice dated December 05, 2020, was set aside. The 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 the BBMP, though it would be subject to the outcome of any such appeal.
Key Issues
1. Whether Bye-Law 3.9 of the Bangalore Mahanagara Palike Building Bye-Laws, 2003, is unconstitutional, arbitrary, illegal, and ultra-vires, as contended by the petitioners? 2. Whether the Notification dated February 25, 2020, inserting Rules 37-A and 37-C, the Circular dated August 14, 2020, the Government Order dated January 18, 2007, and its corrigendum dated February 28, 2007, and the Circular dated September 04, 2015, are liable to be quashed in so far as they pertain to the petitioners' case? 3. Whether the demand notice dated December 05, 2021, issued by Respondent No. 5, demanding various fees and charges, is valid? Petitioners' arguments: The petitioners argued that Bye-Law 3.9 and the subsequent notifications, circulars, and government orders were unconstitutional, arbitrary, illegal, and ultra-vires. They contended that the levies demanded were not legally sustainable and sought a direction to issue the building license and sanction plan without these payments. 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 of co-ordinate benches.
Sections Cited
Section 45-B of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957, Rule 37-A of the Karnataka Planning Authority Rules, 1965, Bye-Law 3.9 of the Bangalore Mahanagara Palike Building Bye-Laws, 2003, Clause 3.8 of the BBMP Building Bye-laws, 2003
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- 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 TPP2015 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 HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21734 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 Government Order bearing No.LD/300/LET/2006 dated January 18, 2007 (Annexure J) and the corrigendum order bearing No.LD/300/LET/2006, dated February 28, 2007 (Annexure K) issued by the Respondent No.2 mandating upfront collection of labour welfare cess in so far the Petitioners are concerned. e) 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 L) issued by the Respondent No.2 is so far as levy and collection of "Licence Fee'; f) Grant a Writ or order or direction, in the nature of Certiorari, quashing the Impugned Demand Notice bearing BBMP/Addl.Dir/JDEAST /0225/20-21 dated December 05, 2021 by the Respondent No. 5 (Annexure A) as regards the demand made for:- • Scrutiny Fee at Serial No. 1; • License Fee at Serial No. 2; • Ground Rent at Serial No. 3; HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21734 • Betterment Fees for Building at Serial No. 4; • Site Development Charges at Serial No. 5; • Fee for additional application at Serial No. 6; • Security Deposit at Serial No. 7; • Lake Rejuvenation Fee at Serial No. 8; • Compound Fee at Serial No. 9; • Road Cutting Charges at Serial No. 10; • Water Supply, Slum Board, Ring Road MRTS at Serial Nos. 12, 13, 14, 15 along with surcharges; and • Labour Cess.
g) 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, Security Deposit, License fee, Scrutiny fee, Cess for Water Supply Scheme, Surcharge for Formation Outer Ring Road, Cess for Improvement of Slum, Surcharge for Mass HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21734 Rapid Transport System, Labour Cess and etc., and h) 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:21734 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: HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21734 ORDER (i) The writ petition is allowed. (ii) The impugned demand notice dated 05.12.2020 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 HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21734 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.: 28
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.