Sri Umesh Kholay vs. The Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Sri Umesh Kholay, filed a writ petition challenging demand notices dated August 3, 2022, issued by the Assistant Director, Town Planning South Zone, Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP). These notices demanded payment towards ground rent (including GST), labour cess, and other additional charges. The petitioner sought to quash these demand notices. The High Court noted that the issue was substantially covered by a coordinate bench's judgment in W.P.No.23086/2022 and connected matters, which had dealt with similar challenges to amendments in municipal laws and related rules concerning development plans and fees.
Held
The Court held that the present writ petition was substantially covered by the coordinate bench's judgment in W.P.No.23086/2022. Consequently, 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, apply only to development plans for plots exceeding 20,000 square meters. The Court also declared that if fee was previously collected for change of land use or layout plan approval, no further fee would be collected for subsequent development plans. The linkage of levies to market or guidance value under Section 45-B of the Karnataka Stamp Act was declared illegal. Clause 3.8 of the BBMP Building Bye-laws, 2003, regarding 'Ground Rent', was struck down. The impugned demand notices issued to the petitioner were quashed. The BBMP was directed to issue fresh/modified plans and process the petitioner's application for building license and plan sanction strictly in accordance with law, without withholding them pending any appeal by the BBMP.
Key Issues
1. Whether the Karnataka Municipal 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) are valid and applicable. 2. Whether 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 to all plot sizes or only to those exceeding 20,000 square meters. 3. Whether fee collected for change of land use or layout plan approval precludes subsequent collection of fee for development plans. 4. Whether linking the fee leviable under Rule 37-A of the Karnataka Planning Authority Rules, 1965, to the market value or guidance value under Section 45-B of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957, is legal. 5. Whether Clause 3.8 of the Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Building Bye-laws, 2003, providing for 'Ground Rent', is legal. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the demand notices were illegal and sought their quashing, relying on the coordinate bench's judgment. Revenue's contention: The respondents (BBMP and State) did not present separate arguments but were bound by the coordinate bench's decision which had set aside the impugned amendments and rules.
Sections Cited
Section 18-A, Rule 37-A, Rule 37-C, Section 45-B, Clause 3.8
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORAL ORDER
Petitioner in the captioned petition has sought the following reliefs: a) Issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ of like nature, or direction, quashing the Demand Notices dated 03-08-2022 bearing Nos.BBMP/EoDB/CH/19798/22-23 and BBMP/EoDB/CH/19799, both issued by the Respondent No.3 demanding payment towards Ground Rent (including GST) and Labour cess amount and other additional charges and levies at ANNEXURE-A & B. HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21309 b) Grant such other and further relief/s as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case in the interests of justice and equity.
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 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. HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21309 (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. (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. HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21309 (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 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 HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21309 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 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 HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21309 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 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. HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21309 (ii) The impugned demand notices dated 03.08.2022 issued by respondent No.3 as per Annexure-A & B are hereby set- aside.
(iii) Respondent- BBMP is hereby directed to issue fresh/modified plan as the case may be.
(iv) Respondent - BBMP is hereby 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 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 licence and sanction plan are issued, the same shall be subjected to the outcome of any appeal HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21309 that may be filed by the BBMP against the judgment. Pending applications, if any, are also disposed off (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE
PB List No.: 2 Sl No.: 16
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.