Sri Alok S V vs. State Of Karnataka
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Sri. Alok S.V., filed a writ petition challenging a demand notice dated December 14, 2020, issued by the Assistant Director, Town Planning (Bommanahalli), Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike (BBMP). The demand notice included various charges such as scrutiny fee, license fee, ground rent, betterment fee for building and site, security deposit, labour cess, and administrative charges on labour cess. The petitioner sought to quash these demands and also challenged the constitutionality of certain bye-laws and provisions of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961, as well as government orders related to labour cess collection. The petitioner also prayed for directions to issue a building plan and license without insisting on the payment of the disputed demands.
Held
The High Court of Karnataka, in its order dated June 17, 2025, allowed the writ petition. The Court noted that the issues raised in the present petition were comprehensively adjudicated and settled by coordinate benches in previous cases, specifically citing 'M/s Sapthagiri Shelters' (W.P.No.23086/2022) and 'Sunderam Shetty' (W.P.No.36017/2018). In 'Sunderam Shetty', the levies of Ground Rent, License Fee, Building License Fee, and Scrutiny Fee under the relevant bye-laws were declared ultra vires the Act, and related government circulars were quashed. 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. Clause 3.8 of the BBMP Building Bye-laws, 2003, pertaining to Ground Rent, was also declared invalid. Consequently, the present petition was allowed in terms of the operative directions issued in the aforesaid writ petitions. The impugned demand notice (Annexure-C) was set aside. The BBMP was directed to issue a fresh/modified plan and forthwith process the petitioner's application for a building license and building plan sanction strictly in accordance with law. The issuance of the license and plan approval was not to be withheld due to the BBMP contemplating an appeal, but would be subject to the outcome of any such appeal.
Key Issues
1. Whether the demand notice dated December 14, 2020, issued by the Assistant Director, Town Planning (Bommanahalli) (R-4), to the petitioner, Sri. Alok S.V., is liable to be quashed in so far as it demands Rs.13,400/- towards scrutiny fee, Rs.2,67,000/- towards license fee, Rs.1,60,300/- towards ground rent and GST, Rs.62,000/- towards betterment fee for building, Rs.9,62,000/- towards betterment charges for site, Rs.3,00,000/- towards security deposit, Rs.5,37,000/- towards labour cess, and Rs.1,00,000/- towards administrative charges on labour cess. 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 Section 18-A(1) and (iv) of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961, brought into effect by Karnataka Act No.23 of 2004, are liable to be quashed. 5. Whether amended Rule 37-A and Rule 37-C of the notification issued by the 1st Respondent bearing No. UDD 3 TTP 2015 dated February 25, 2020, are liable to be quashed. Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner sought to quash the demand notice and challenged the legality of various bye-laws, government orders, and statutory provisions. The petitioner also sought directions to issue the building plan and license without insisting on the disputed payments. Respondents' Arguments: The judgment does not record specific arguments from the respondents. However, it refers to previous judgments that have adjudicated similar issues.
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./MMH/0586/20-21 dated nil signed on 14.12.2020 at Annexure -C issued by the respondent No.4 only in so far as the demand of Rs.13,400/- towards Scrutiny fee, Rs.2,67,000/- towards License fee, Rs.1,60,300/- towards Ground Rent and GST, Rs.62,000/- towards Betterment fee for building, Rs.9,62,000/- towards betterment charges for site, Rs.3,00,000/- towards Security Deposit etc., In addition to the above demand the Respondents No.3 and 4 have also demanded from the petitioners a sum of Rs.5,37,000/-towards labour cess payable in favour of Karnataka State Building and other construction workers welfare boar and administrative charges on labour cess in a sum Rs.1,00,000/-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;
iii) 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-D
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 HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21113 brought into effect by Karnataka Act No.23 of 2004 by the 1" Respondent at Annexure-F in so far as 18-A(1) 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 TTP 2015 dated 25.02.2020 as contained in ANNEXURE- 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./MMH/0586/ 20- 21 dated nil signed on 14.12.2020 at Annexure -C 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 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 HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21113 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 the relevant bye-laws and government circulars have been set aside. HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21113
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 issued by respondent No.4 as per Annexure-C 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 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 HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21113 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
DH 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.