Sri G Rajashekar vs. The State Of Karnataka
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Sri. G. Rajashekar, 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 Karnataka Act No. 23 of 2004, Rule 37-A and 37-C inserted by a notification dated 25/02/2020, circulars dated 04/09/2015 and 14/08/2020 issued by Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike (BBMP), and a government order dated 18/01/2007 mandating upfront collection of labour welfare cess. The petitioner also challenged a demand notice dated 28/10/2020 issued by the Assistant Director Town Planning (West), BBMP, for various charges including Ground rent, GST on Ground rent, Betterment charges, License fee, scrutiny fee, and various cesses and surcharges.
Held
The Court held that the issues raised in the present writ petition were squarely covered by the binding decisions of coordinate benches in "M/s Sapthagiri Shelters" and "Sunderam Shetty" and connected matters. 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 related government circulars were quashed. In "M/s Sapthagiri Shelters," Karnataka Act No. 01 of 2022 and Karnataka Act No. 37 of 2024 were struck down for illegally linking fees under Rule 37-A to market/guidance value under the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957, and related circulars were quashed, with Clause 3.8 of BBMP Building Bye-laws, 2003, pertaining to Ground Rent, declared invalid. 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 28.10.2020 was set aside, and BBMP was directed to issue a modified sanction plan and process the petitioner's application for building license and sanction of the building plan strictly in accordance with law. The issuance of the license and plan shall not be withheld pending any appeal by BBMP, but would be subject to the outcome of such appeal.
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 liable to be quashed? 2. Whether Rule 37-A and 37-C inserted by the notification dated 25/02/2020 are liable to be quashed? 3. Whether the circulars dated 04/09/2015 and 14/08/2020 issued by BBMP, and the government order dated 18/01/2007 concerning labour welfare cess, are liable to be quashed? 4. Whether the demand notice dated 28/10/2020 issued by the Assistant Director Town Planning (West), BBMP, is illegal and without jurisdiction? The petitioner argued that the aforementioned provisions, notifications, circulars, and demand notice were illegal, without jurisdiction, and arbitrary. The respondents did not record any specific arguments in the judgment, but the court referred to previous binding decisions that had adjudicated similar issues. The petitioner relied on the principles laid down in the cases of "M/s Sapthagiri Shelters" and "Sunderam Shetty" and connected matters.
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
Petitioner in the captioned petition has sought the following reliefs: i) Grant an order, direction or writ in the nature of Certiorari quashing Section 18-A of the Karnataka HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21320 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(1) 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, 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 28/10/2020, bearing No.BBMP/Ad.Com/WST /0174/18-19, issued by the Respondent No.5 (Annexure-D) for demanding in so far it is concerned to Ground rent, GST on Ground HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21320 rent, Betterment charges for building, Betterment charges for site, 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.
vii) issue a writ or order or direction by way of mandamus directing the Respondent No.4 and 5 BBMP to issue the modified sanction plan with respect to the Schedule Property without insisting the Ground rent, GST on Ground rent, Betterment charges for building, Betterment charges for site, 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:21320
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. 4. 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, HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21320 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 28.10.2020 issued by respondent No.5 as per Annexure-D is hereby set-aside.
(iii) Respondent - BBMP is hereby directed to issue modified sanction plan.
(iv) Respondent - BBMP is directed to forthwith process the petitioner’s application seeking HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21320 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.
Pending applications, if any, are also disposed off. (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE
PB List No.: 2 Sl No.: 28
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.