Keppel Puravankara Development Private Limited vs. State Of Karnataka
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Keppel Puravankara Development Private Limited, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Karnataka seeking to quash Bye-Law 3.9 of the Bangalore Mahanagara Palike Building Bye-Laws, 2003, and several other notifications, circulars, and government orders. The petitioner also sought to quash a demand notice issued by the Joint Director (Town Planning-South), Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP), which included demands for Ground Rent, GST, License Fee, Scrutiny Fee, Betterment Fees, Security Deposit, Service Charge on Labour Cess, surcharge to BBMP, surcharge to BWSSB, BDA, KSCB, and Labour Cess. The petitioner sought a direction to BBMP to issue a sanction plan without insisting on these payments. The respondents include the State of Karnataka and various departments of BBMP.
Held
The High Court of Karnataka, in its order, noted that coordinate benches of the same court had comprehensively adjudicated similar issues in W.P.No.23086/2022 (M/s Sapthagiri Shelters) and W.P.No.36017/2018 (Sunderam Shetty). In Sunderam Shetty, the court had declared levies of Ground Rent, License Fee, Building License Fee, and Scrutiny Fee under relevant bye-laws as ultra vires the Act and quashed related government circulars. In M/s Sapthagiri Shelters, the court struck down Karnataka Act No.01 of 2022 and Karnataka Act No.37 of 2024, holding 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, as illegal, and also quashed related circulars and declared Clause 3.8 of the BBMP Building Bye-laws, 2003, pertaining to Ground Rent, as invalid. The court found that the issues raised in the present writ petition were squarely covered by these binding decisions. Therefore, the court allowed the writ petition, set aside the impugned demand notice dated 11.11.2020, and directed BBMP 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 court clarified that the issuance of the license and plan approval shall not be withheld due to BBMP contemplating an appeal, but 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 petitioner. 2. Whether the Notification bearing No. UDD 3 TPP 2015, inserting Rules 37-A and 37-C, is liable to be quashed, as argued by the petitioner. 3. Whether the circular dated August 14, 2020, issued by BBMP, and the Government Order dated January 18, 2007, along with its corrigendum dated February 28, 2007, mandating upfront collection of labour welfare cess, are liable to be quashed, as submitted by the petitioner. 4. Whether the circular dated September 04, 2015, issued by the respondent, concerning the levy and collection of 'Licence Fee', is liable to be quashed, as contended by the petitioner. 5. Whether the impugned demand notice dated November 11, 2020, issued by BBMP, demanding various charges including GST, is liable to be quashed, as argued by the petitioner. The petitioner argued that the impugned bye-laws, notifications, and circulars are illegal and arbitrary. The respondents, represented by Smt. Spoorthy V. (HCGP) and Smt. Sinchana M.R. (Advocate), did not present any specific arguments in the judgment, but the court's decision was based on prior pronouncements.
Sections Cited
Section 45-B, Rule 37-A, Bye-Law 3.9, Clause 3.8
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:
"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 TPP 2015 dated February 25, 2020 (Annexure-E) 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 Respondent No.4 (Annexure-F) 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 G) and the corrigendum HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21472 order bearing No. LD/300/LET/2006, dated February 28, 2007 (Annexure H) 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 J) 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/JD SOUTH/LP/0001/20-21 dated November 11, 2020 by the Respondent No. 5 (Annexure A) as regards the demand made for:- • Ground Rent at Serial No. 1; • GST at Serial No. 2; • License Fee at Serial No. 3; • Scrutiny Fee at Serial No. 4; • Betterment Fees for Building at Serial No. 6; • Security Deposit at Serial No. 7; • Service Charge on Labour Cess at Serial No. 10; HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21472 • Levy and Collection of 5% surcharge to be paid to BBMP at Serial No. 12; • Levy and Collection of surcharge to be paid to BWSSB, BDA and KSCB at Serial No. 13; 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 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 HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21472 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.
The issues raised in the present writ petition are squarely covered by the above binding decisions, wherein HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21472 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 11.11.2020 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 HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21472 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
GSS List No.: 2 Sl No.: 5
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.