Sri. C A Ramachandra vs. State Of Karnataka
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Sri. C A Ramachandra, filed a writ petition challenging a demand notice dated December 26, 2024, issued by the Joint Director, Town Planning (Mahadevapura), Respondent No. 3. The demand notice included various charges such as scrutiny fee, license fee, ground rent, GST, lake rejuvenation fee, betterment levy, water supply cess, ring road surcharge, slum improvement cess, MRTS surcharge, and security deposit. The petitioner sought to quash this demand notice and sought directions for the issuance of a building plan and license without insisting on payment of these amounts. The petitioner also challenged the constitutionality of Bye-law No. 3.9 of the Bangalore Mahanagara Palike Building Bye-laws, 2003.
Held
The High Court allowed the writ petition, finding that the core issue was substantially covered by a coordinate bench's judgment in W.P.No.23086/2022 and connected matters. This prior judgment had quashed and set aside the Karnataka Municipal Corporations and Certain Other Law (Amendment) Acts of 2021 and 2023. It also 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, were applicable only to plots exceeding 20,000 square meters. Furthermore, the prior judgment held that if fees were already collected for change of land use or layout plan approval, no further fee should be levied 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, and consequently, all impugned circulars and demand notices were quashed. Clause 3.8 of the BBMP Building Bye-laws, 2003, concerning 'Ground Rent', was also struck down. Based on this precedent, the present writ petition was allowed. The impugned demand notice was set aside, and the respondents were directed to issue a fresh/modified plan and process the petitioner's application for a building license and plan sanction strictly in accordance with law. The court clarified that the issuance of the license and plan should not be withheld due to any contemplation of an appeal by the BBMP, but any issued license/plan would be subject to the outcome of any appeal.
Key Issues
1. Whether the demand notice dated December 26, 2024, issued by Respondent No. 3, demanding various fees and charges including GST, is liable to be quashed, considering the petitioner's challenge to the underlying legal provisions and bye-laws? (Question of law and mixed fact and law, concerning the validity of the demand notice and the levies therein). 2. Whether Bye-law No. 3.9 of the Bangalore Mahanagara Palike Building Bye-laws, 2003, framed under the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, is unconstitutional, arbitrary, illegal, and ultravires? (Question of law, concerning the validity of a bye-law). Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner contended that the demand notice was illegal and sought its quashing. They also argued that Bye-law No. 3.9 was unconstitutional, arbitrary, and ultravires. The petitioner sought a direction to issue the building plan and license without payment of the disputed amounts. Respondents' Arguments: The judgment does not explicitly record arguments made by the respondents. However, it notes that the issue was dealt with by a coordinate bench in a reported judgment.
Sections Cited
Section 18-A, Rule 37-A, Rule 37-C, Section 45-B, Bye-law No. 3.9
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORAL ORDER The captioned petition is filed seeking the following reliefs: a) Issue a writ of certiorari or similar writ or order or direction to quash the demand notice No.BBMP/Addl.Com/MDP/0667/24-25 dated 26/12/2024 at Annexure-B issued by the respondent No.3 in so far as the demand of Rs.31,997/- towards Scrutiny fee, License Fee of Rs.6,39,936/-, Ground HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20941 Rent and GST of Rs.3,77,562, Lake Rejuvenation Fee of Rs.58,150, Fee U/s 18(1) of KTCP (Betterment Levy) for building Rs.1,29,568, Fee U/s 18(1) of KTCP (Betterment Levy) for Site Rs.2,55,860 Water Supply Cess of Rs.25,586, Ring Road Surcharge of 25,586 and Cess for Improvement of Slums 12,793, MRTS Surcharge of Rs.1,27,930 and Security Deposit of Rs. 6,46,400/-
b) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction declaring that Bye-law No.3.9 in the Bangalore Mahanagara Palike Building Bye-laws, 2003 framed under the Karnataka Municipal Corporations act as unconstitutional, arbitrary, illegal and ultravires;
c) Issue writ of mandamus or similar writ or order or direction directing the respondent Nos.2 and 3 to issue building plan and license pursuant to the demand notice No.BBMP/Adll.Com/MDP/0667/24-25 dated 26/12/2024 at Annexure-B issued by the respondent no.3 without insisting for payment of amount mentioned above. HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20941 d) Issue any other appropriate writ or order or direction deemed fit in the circumstances of the case in the interest 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:20941 (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. (vii) Consequently, all the impugned Circulars which seek to give effect to the Rules 37-A and 37-C of HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20941 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 Municipal Corporations and Certain Other Law (Amendment) Acts of 2021 and 2023 (Karnataka Act Nos.01 of 2022 and 37 of 2024 respectively). HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20941
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 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. HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20941
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. (ii) The impugned demand notice dated 26.12.2024 issued by respondent No.3 as per Annexure-B is hereby set-aside. (iii) Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are hereby directed to issue fresh/modified plan as the case may be. HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20941 (iv) Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are 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 license and sanction plan are 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
KLY
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.