M/S Sadanjana Group vs. The State Of Karnataka

WP/15382/2020HC KarnatakaGSTCNR KAHC01038544202020 June 2025Bench: SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM9 pages

For Petitioner: SRI B.PRAMOD, ADVOCATEFor Respondent: SRI H.K.KENCHEGOWDA, AGA FOR R-1 TO R-3; SMT.SINCHANA M.R., ADVOCATE FOR R-4 & R-5

AI SummaryAllowed

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Sadanajana Group, filed a writ petition challenging various provisions of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961, as amended, and related notifications, circulars, and government orders. Specifically, the petitioner sought to quash Section 18-A(i) and (iv) of the Act, Rule 37-A and 37-C of the Karnataka Planning Authority Rules, 1965, certain circulars issued by the Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike (BBMP), and a government order mandating upfront collection of labour welfare cess. The petitioner also challenged a demand notice issued by the Assistant Director, Town Planning (Mahadevapura), BBMP, for various charges including ground rent, GST on ground rent, betterment charges, and other cesses and surcharges. The petitioner sought a direction to issue a sanction plan for a residential apartment building without insisting on these charges.

Held

The Court held that the issues raised in the present writ petition are squarely covered by previous binding decisions of 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, finding 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, to be illegal. It also quashed related circulars and declared Clause 3.8 of the BBMP Building Bye-laws, 2003, pertaining to Ground Rent, as invalid. Similarly, in 'Sunderam Shetty', levies of Ground Rent, License Fee, Building License Fee, and Scrutiny Fee under relevant bye-laws were declared ultra vires the Act, and certain government circulars were quashed. 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 dated 30.11.2020 was set aside, and 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.

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 Rule 37-A and 37-C of the Karnataka Planning Authority Rules, 1965, which link fees to market/guidance value under the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957, are illegal. 3. Whether the circulars and government orders mandating upfront collection of labour welfare cess and other charges, and the demand notice issued by the BBMP for these charges, are illegal, without jurisdiction, and arbitrary. Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the impugned provisions, notifications, circulars, and demand notice are illegal, without jurisdiction, and arbitrary, and sought their quashing. Revenue/State's Arguments: The judgment does not record specific arguments from the respondents. However, it refers to previous binding decisions that have adjudicated similar issues.

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

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21556 WP No. 15382 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO.15382 OF 2020 (LB-BMP) BETWEEN: M/S.SADANJANA GROUP REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.61/B 1ST CROSS ROAD PRASHANT EXTENSION WHITEFIELD BENGALURU-560 066 REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER SRI T.PRATHEESH KUMAR S/O.T.RAMALINGA REDDY AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS …PETITIONER (BY SRI B.PRAMOD, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THE URBAN DEVELOPMETN DEPARTMENT VIKASA SOUDHA DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU-560 001 2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THE LABOUR DEPARTMENT VIKASA SOUDHA DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU-560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS UNDER SECRETARY 3. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS AND LEGISLATION Digitally signed by GAVRIBIDANUR SUBRAMANYA GUPTA SREENATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21556 WP No. 15382 of 2020 VIKASA SOUDHA DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEEDHI BENGALURU-560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY 4. BRUHATH BANGALORE MAHANAGAR PALIKE N.R.SQUARE BENGALURU–560 002 REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER 5. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR TOWN PLANNING (MAHADEVAPURA) BRUHATH BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE RHB COLONY WHITEFIELD MAIN ROAD BENGALURU-560 048 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI H.K.KENCHEGOWDA, AGA FOR R-1 TO R-3; SMT.SINCHANA M.R., ADVOCATE FOR R-4 & R-5) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FIELD UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH SECTION 18-A OF THE KARNATAKA TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANING ACT, 1961 BROUGHT INTO EFFECT BY KARNATAKA ACT NO.23 OF 2004 (KARNATAKA TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (AMENDMENT) ACT 1998 AS CONTAINED IN ANNXURE-G1 IN SO FAR SECTION 18-A(i) AND (iv) OF THE KARNATAKA ACT NO.23 OF 2004 IS CONCERNED AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21556 WP No. 15382 of 2020

ORAL ORDER

The petitioner is seeking for the following reliefs:

"i) grant an order, direction or writ in the nature of the 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 (Annexure-E) in so far the Petitioner is concerned. HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21556 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 Petitioner is 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 Petitioner is concerned.

vi) Issue a writ or order by way of certiorari quashing the demand notice bearing No.BBMP/Ad.Com/ MDP/0276/20-21, dated 30/11/2020, 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 road, Cess for improvement of slum, Surcharge for Mass HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21556 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 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"

2 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 HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21556 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 Building Bye-laws, 2003, pertaining to Ground Rent, as invalid. HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21556

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 30.11.2020 issued by respondent No.5 as per Annexure-D is hereby set- aside. HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21556 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:21556 Pending applications, if any, are also disposed off. (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE

GSS List No.: 2 Sl No.: 22

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.