Sri.M.Raghu Ramaiah vs. The State Of Karnataka
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Sri M. Raghu Ramaiah, filed a writ petition challenging various provisions of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961, as amended, and subsequent notifications, circulars, and government orders. Specifically, the petitioner sought to quash Section 18-A(i) and (iv) of the Act, inserted by Karnataka Act No. 23 of 2004, Rule 37-A and 37-C of the Karnataka Planning Authority Rules, 1965, a circular dated 04/09/2015 issued by Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP), a circular dated 14/08/2020 issued by BBMP, a government order dated 18/01/2007 and its corrigendum dated 28/02/2007, and a demand notice dated 04/12/2020 issued by the Assistant Director, Town Planning-(East), BBMP. The demand notice included various charges such as Ground rent, GST on Ground rent, Betterment charges, License fee, scrutiny fee, and various cesses and surcharges.
Held
The Court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the impugned demand notice dated 04.12.2020 issued by respondent No.5 (BBMP). The Court directed the BBMP to issue a fresh or 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. 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 filing an appeal against the reported judgment. However, if the license and plan are issued, they 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 in the present petition were squarely covered by binding decisions of coordinate benches in 'M/s Sapthagiri Shelters' and 'Sunderam Shetty' cases. These prior judgments had declared levies of Ground Rent, License Fee, Building License Fee, and Scrutiny Fee as ultra vires the Act, quashed related government circulars, and struck down Karnataka Act No.01 of 2022 and Karnataka Act No.37 of 2024 for illegally linking fees to market/guidance value, also invalidating Clause 3.8 of the BBMP Building Bye-laws, 2003.
Key Issues
1. Whether Section 18-A(i) and (iv) of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961, as amended by Karnataka Act No. 23 of 2004, are ultra vires the Constitution? 2. Whether Rule 37-A and 37-C of the Karnataka Planning Authority Rules, 1965, as notified by the State of Karnataka's Urban Development Department, are illegal and liable to be quashed? 3. Whether the circulars issued by the BBMP dated 04/09/2015 and 14/08/2020, and the government orders dated 18/01/2007 and 28/02/2007, mandating upfront collection of certain charges and cesses, are arbitrary and without jurisdiction? The petitioner argued that the aforementioned provisions, notifications, and circulars are illegal, without jurisdiction, and arbitrary, particularly concerning the imposition of various charges and cesses. The petitioner sought to quash these provisions and the demand notice issued by the BBMP. The respondents, including the State of Karnataka and BBMP, did not record specific arguments in the judgment, but the court referred to prior judgments that had 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
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner is seeking for the following reliefs: "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 (Annexure-E) in so far the Petitioner is concerned. iv) issue a writ or order by way of certiorari quashing the circular dated 14/08/2020, HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21473 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 dated 04/12/2020, bearing No.BBMP/Ad.Com/EST/ 1813/19-20, 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 Rapid Transport System, Labour cess and etc., as illegal, without juri iction and arbitrary. HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21473 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 commercial 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"
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. HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21473 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.
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. HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21473 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 04.12.2020 issued by respondent No.5 as per Annexure-D 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. HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21473 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
GSS List No.: 2 Sl No.: 6
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.