Sri. M Ramakrishna Reddy vs. State Of Karnataka
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioners, Sri M. Ramakrishna Reddy and others, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Karnataka challenging a demand notice dated December 14, 2020, issued by the Assistant Director, Town Planning BBMP (Respondent No. 4). The demand notice included various charges such as scrutiny fee, license fee, ground rent and GST, betterment fee for building and site, security deposit, labour cess, and surcharges for water supply scheme, ring road, slum improvement, and mass rapid transport system. The petitioners sought to quash these demands and also challenged the constitutional validity of certain bye-laws, government orders, and provisions of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961, and related rules.
Held
The High Court allowed the writ petition. It held that the issues raised in the present petition were squarely covered by previous binding decisions of coordinate benches in cases like 'M/s Sapthagiri Shelters' and 'Sunderam Shetty'. In those cases, 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. Furthermore, the Karnataka Act No. 01 of 2022 and Karnataka Act No. 37 of 2024 were struck down for illegally 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. Clause 3.8 of the BBMP Building Bye-laws, 2003, pertaining to Ground Rent, was also declared invalid. Consequently, the impugned demand notice dated December 14, 2020, issued by Respondent No. 4 was set aside. The BBMP was 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, without withholding them based on the BBMP contemplating an appeal. Any issuance of license and plan sanction would be subject to the outcome of any appeal filed by the BBMP.
Key Issues
1. Whether the demand notice dated December 14, 2020, issued by the Assistant Director, Town Planning BBMP, in so far as it demands various fees and charges including scrutiny fee, license fee, ground rent and GST, betterment fee, security deposit, labour cess, and surcharges, is illegal and liable to be quashed, considering the petitioners' challenge to the underlying legal provisions and bye-laws? 2. Whether Bye-law No. 3.9 of the Bangalore Mahanagara Palike Building Bye-laws, 2003, is unconstitutional, arbitrary, illegal, and ultravires? 3. Whether the Government Order bearing G.O.No.LD 300 LET 2006 dated January 18, 2007, and its corrigendum dated February 28, 2007, directing upfront collection of labour welfare cess, are liable to be quashed? 4. Whether provisions of 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? 5. Whether the Notification bearing No. UDD 3 TPP 2015 dated February 25, 2020, in so far as it amends Rule 37-A and Rule 37-C of the Karnataka Planning Authority Rules, 1965, is liable to be quashed? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioners argued that the demands in the notice are illegal and sought to quash them. They also challenged the constitutional validity of various bye-laws, government orders, and statutory provisions that formed the basis of these demands. They relied on previous judgments of coordinate benches that had adjudicated similar issues. Respondents' Contention: The judgment does not record specific arguments from the respondents. However, it notes that the issues raised are covered by previous binding decisions.
Sections Cited
Section 45-B, Rule 37-A, Rule 37-C, Bye-law No. 3.9, Section 18-A
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: i) issue a writ of certiorari or similar writ or order or direction to quash the demand notice No.BBMP/Ad.Com./BMH/1593/19-20 dated nil signed on 14.12.2020 at Annexure -D issued by the respondent No.4 only in so far as the demand of Rs. 16,100/-towards Scrutiny fee, Rs.3,18,800/- towards License fee, Rs.2,95,600/- towards Ground Rent and GST, Rs.2,07,000/-towards Betterment fee for building, Rs.5,74,900/- towards betterment charges for site, Rs.2,07,000/- towards Security HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20860 Deposit etc., Rs.3,83,000/- towards labour cess and demand of surcharge of Rs.76,700/- towards Water Supply Scheme, Rs.76,700/- towards Ring Road, Rs.38,400/- towards Improvement of Slum and Rs.1,91,700/- towards Mass Rapid Transport System are concerned; ii) 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 as unconstitutional, arbitrary, illegal and ultravires; iⅲ) Issue Writ of Certiorari quashing the Government Order issued by the 2nd Respondent bearing G.O.No.LD 300 LET 2006 dated 18.01.2007 and the corrigendum bearing No. LD 300 LET 2006 dated 28.02.2007 directing upfront collection of labour welfare cess, as contained in ANNEXURE-E iv) Issue a writ of certiorari or similar writ or order or direction to quash provisions of section 18-A of Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961 brought into effect by Karnataka Act HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20860 No.23 of 2004 by the 1st Respondent at Annexure-G in so far as 18-A(i) and (iv) of Karnataka Act No.23 of 2004 is concerned. v) grant an order, direction or writ in the nature of Certiorari quashing the Notification issued by the 1st Respondent bearing No. UDD 3 TPP 2015 dated 25.02.2020 as contained in ANNEXURE-H in so far as the amended Rule 37-A and Rule 37-C are concerned; vi) issue writ of mandamus or similar writ or order or direction directing the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 to issue building plan and license pursuant to the demand notice No.BBMP/Ad.Com./ BMH/1593/19-20 dated nil signed on 14.12.2020 at Annexure -D issued by the respondent No.4 without insisting for payment of aforesaid demands. vii) issue any other appropriate writ or order or direction as deemed fit in the 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 HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20860 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.
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. HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20860
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.
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 NIL issued by respondent No.4 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 HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20860 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 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.