Smt. Reshmidevi vs. State Of Karnataka
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Smt. Reshmidevi, represented by her GPA holder M/s Jain Housing and Constructions Ltd., filed a writ petition challenging the Karnataka Municipal Corporations and Certain Other Law (Amendment) Act, 2021 (Act No. 1/2022), an office order dated 09.12.2021, and a demand notice dated 19.12.2022 issued by the Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike (BBMP). The demand notice included amounts for ground rent, GST, and scrutiny fees. The petitioner sought to quash these actions as ultra vires, unconstitutional, and in violation of previous court orders. The respondents are the State of Karnataka and BBMP authorities.
Held
The High Court, following a coordinate bench's decision in a connected matter, allowed the writ petition. The Court quashed and set aside the Karnataka Municipal Corporations and Certain Other Law (Amendment) Acts of 2021 and 2023. It was declared that Section 18-A of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961, read with Rules 37-A and 37-C of the Karnataka Planning Authority Rules, 1965, applies only to development plans for plots exceeding 20,000 square meters. The Court also held that no further fee should be collected if it was already paid for change of land use or layout plan approval. The linkage of levies to market or guidance value under Section 45-B of the Karnataka Stamp Act was declared illegal. Consequently, all impugned circulars and demand notices, including the one issued to the petitioner, were quashed. Clause 3.8 of the BBMP Building Bye-laws, 2003, concerning 'Ground Rent', was also struck down. The Court directed the BBMP to issue an Occupancy Certificate in accordance with law and not withhold it pending any appeal by the BBMP.
Key Issues
1. Whether the Karnataka Municipal Corporations and Certain Other Law (Amendment) Act, 2021 (Act No. 1/2022) and the Karnataka Municipal Corporations and Certain Other Law (Amendment) Act, 2023 (Act No. 37 of 2024) are ultra vires and unconstitutional, particularly in relation to Section 18-A of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961, read with Rules 37-A and 37-C of the Karnataka Planning Authority Rules, 1965? The petitioner argued that these amendment acts were unconstitutional and violated a previous order of the High Court. The respondents' arguments are not explicitly recorded in this section of the judgment. 2. Whether the demand notice dated 19.12.2022, including the demand for GST, is liable to be quashed? The petitioner contended that the demand, particularly the GST component, was illegal. The respondents' specific arguments on this point are not detailed.
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
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner is seeking for the following reliefs:
i) Issue a writ of certiorari or similar writ or order or direction to quash the Karnataka Municipal Corporations and Certain Other Law (Amendment) Act, 2021 Act No.1/2022 dated 13.01.2022 enacted by the first respondent published through notification bearing No.DPAL 50 SHASANA 2021 gazetted on 13.01.2022 at Annexure-J declaring it to be ultra vires and unconstitutional so also in HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21889 violation of the order passed by this Hon'ble Court in W.P.No.4601/2020, vide ANNEXURE-E and other connected petitions. ii) Issue writ of certiorari or similar writ or order or direction to quash the Office Order bearing No.ADTP/PR/461/2021-22 dated 09.12.2021 issued by the second respondent at Annexure-H iii) Issue a writ of certiorari or similar writ or order or direction to quash the demand notice bearing No.BBMP/ Addl.Dir/ JDSOUTH/LP/0140/14-15 dated 19/12/2022 at Annexure-D issued by the Respondent No.3 only in so far as demand of Rs. 14,00,869/- towards ground Rent, 2,52,156/ towards GST and 50% of Rs.1,12,070/- towards Scrutiny Fee are concerned; iv) Issue any other appropriate writ or order or direction to the respondents deemed fit in the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity. 2. . It is brought to the notice of this Court that across the Bar, the issue is dealt by the Co-ordinate Bench in the reported judgment in W.P.No.23086/2022 and connected matters. The Co-ordinate Bench, while deciding the issue, has set-aside the Karnataka Municipal HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21889 Corporations and Certain Other Law (Amendment) Act, 2021 (Karnataka Act No.01 of 2022) and the Karnataka Municipal Corporations and Certain Other Law (Amendment) Act, 2023, (Karnataka Act No.37 of 2024). Therefore, this Court deems it fit to cull out the operative portion of the order, which reads as under; "ORDER (i) The writ petitions are partly allowed. (ii) The Karnataka Municipal Corporations and Certain Other Law (Amendment) Act, 2021 (Karnataka Act No.01 of 2022), is hereby quashed and set aside. (iii) The Karnataka Municipal Corporations and Certain Other Law (Amendment) Act, 2023, (Karnataka Act No.37 of 2024), is hereby quashed and set aside. (iv) It is hereby declared that the provisions contained in Section 18-A of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961, read with Rules 37-A and 37-C of the Karnataka Planning Authority Rules, 1965, are applicable only in respect of ‘Development Plan’ containing the proposal for construction on plots measuring more than 20,000 square meters in extent and not in respect of plots measuring less than 20,000 square meters. HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21889 (v) It is hereby declared that if fee has been earlier collected for change of land use or while approving a layout plan, fee shall not be collected for subsequent ‘Development Plan’ in terms of the ‘Note’ found below TABLE I of Rule 37-A of the Karnataka Planning Authority Rules, 1965. (vi) It is hereby declared that the linking of the fee leviable under Rule 37-A of the Karnataka Planning Authority Rules, 1965, to the ‘market value’ or ‘guidance value’ as determined under Section 45-B of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957, is illegal. However, liberty is reserved to the respondent-State Government and the BBMP to re-fix a standard after collecting empherical data. (vii) Consequently, all the impugned Circulars which seek to give effect to the Rules 37-A and 37-C of the Karnataka Planning Authority Rules, 1965, are hereby quashed and set aside. (viii) It is hereby declared that Clause 3.8 of the Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Building Bye- laws, 2003, providing for ‘Ground Rent’, is illegal and are accordingly quashed and set aside. (ix) Consequently, all the impugned Demand Notices raised by the respondent-BBMP, in respect of the writ petitioners herein are also quashed and set aside. It would be advisable that the BBMP may come out with a scheme for ‘One Time Settlement’ and settle the levy and collect the fee generally acceptable to the HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21889 citizens of Bengaluru. This would also augment the present situation."
In the present writ petition, the core issue raised stands substantially covered and decided by the authoritative pronouncement of the coordinate bench, wherein the writ petitions were partly allowed and several consequential reliefs were granted. The Hon’ble Court, in unequivocal terms, quashed and set aside the Karnataka Municipal Corporations and Certain Other Law (Amendment) Acts of 2021 and 2023 (Karnataka Act Nos.01 of 2022 and 37 of 2024 respectively).
The Court further declared that the provisions under Section 18-A of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961, read with Rules 37-A and 37-C of the Karnataka Planning Authority Rules, 1965, are applicable only to development proposals concerning plots exceeding 20,000 square meters, and not to smaller plots. Importantly, it was also held that if a fee has been previously collected for change of land use or approval of HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21889 layout plan, no further fee shall be levied for subsequent development plans, in view of the explanatory 'Note' to Table I of Rule 37-A.
The Court declared illegal the linkage of such levies to market or guidance value under Section 45-B of the Karnataka Stamp Act, and consequently, quashed all Circulars and demand notices issued to give effect to such unlawful interpretations. Clause 3.8 of the BBMP Building Bye-laws, 2003, imposing 'Ground Rent', was also struck down.
In view of these comprehensive declarations and findings, it is submitted that the controversy raised in the present writ petition no longer survives for adjudication independently, as it is squarely covered by the binding judgment of the coordinate bench. In the light of the law laid down in the reported judgment substantially covering the issue, which is raised in the captioned writ petition, the HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21889 writ petition is liable to be allowed strictly aligning to the operative portion of the said writ petition.
In view of the above, this Court proceeds to pass the following; ORDER i) The writ petition is allowed. ii) The impugned demand notice dated 19.12.2022 issued by respondent No.3 as per Annexure-D is hereby set-aside. iii) Respondent - BBMP is hereby directed to issue Occupancy Certificate in accordance with law in compliance of the construction strictly adhering to the approved building plan. iv) Respondent- BBMP is hereby directed to forthwith process the petitioner's application seeking occupancy certificate, strictly in accordance with law. HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21889 v) It is made clear that the issuance of occupancy certificate shall not be withheld merely on the ground that the BBMP is contemplating to file an appeal against the reported judgment. vi) If occupancy certificate is issued, the same shall be subjected to the outcome of any appeal that may be filed by the BBMP against the judgment. Pending applications, if any, are also disposed off. (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE
GSS List No.: 2 Sl No.: 9
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.