Sri. M Kumaraswamy Raju vs. State Of Karnataka

Facts

The petitioner, Sri. M. Kumaraswamy Raju, represented by his GPA M/s. Axis Concept Construction Pvt Ltd, filed a writ petition challenging a demand notice dated August 5, 2021, issued by the Joint Director (Town Planning South), Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike (BBMP). The demand notice included various charges such as scrutiny fee, ground rent, GST, license fee, betterment fee, security deposit, and various cess amounts. The petitioner sought to quash these demands and also challenged the constitutional validity of certain bye-laws, government orders, circulars, and provisions of the Karnataka Town and County Planning Act, 1961, and Karnataka Planning Authority Rules, 1965.

Held

The Court held that the issues raised in the present writ petition are squarely covered by previous binding decisions of coordinate benches of the High Court. Specifically, in the case of 'Sunderam Shetty', 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 the case of 'M/s Sapthagiri Shelters', Karnataka Act No.01 of 2022 and Karnataka Act No.37 of 2024 were struck down for illegally linking fees to market/guidance value, and Clause 3.8 of the BBMP Building Bye-laws, 2003, pertaining to Ground Rent, was declared invalid. Consequently, the Court found no need for separate adjudication and allowed the petition. The impugned demand notice dated 05.08.2021 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 sanction of the building plan strictly in accordance with law. The issuance of the license and plan approval shall not be withheld pending any appeal by the BBMP, but will be subject to the outcome of such appeal.

Key Issues

1. Whether the demand notice dated 05.08.2021, issued by the respondent No.4, is liable to be quashed in so far as it demands various fees and charges, including scrutiny fee, ground rent, GST, license fee, betterment fee, security deposit, and various cess amounts? (Question of law and fact, turning on the validity of the underlying levies). 2. Whether Bye-law No.3.9 of the Bangalore Mahanagara Palike Building Bye-laws, 2003, is unconstitutional, arbitrary, illegal, and ultravires? (Question of law, turning on the validity of the bye-law). 3. Whether the Government Order bearing G.O.No.LD 300 LET 2006 dated 18.01.2007 and its corrigendum dated 28.02.2007, directing upfront collection of labour welfare cess, are liable to be quashed? (Question of law, turning on the validity of the government order). 4. Whether the Circular bearing No.He.Ni.Ka.Pa.Ko/P.R/320/2020-31 dated 14.08.2020, issued by the 2nd Respondent, is liable to be quashed? (Question of law, turning on the validity of the circular). 5. Whether Section 18-A of the Karnataka Town and County Planning Act, 1961, specifically sub-sections 18-A(i) and (iv) as brought into effect by Karnataka Act No. 23 of 2004, is liable to be quashed? (Question of law, turning on the validity of the statutory provision). 6. Whether Notification No. UDD 3 TTP 2015 dated 25.02.2020, amending Rule 37-A and Rule 37-C of the Karnataka Planning Authority Rules, 1965, is liable to be quashed? (Question of law, turning on the validity of the amended rules). Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner sought to quash the demand notice and challenged the constitutional validity of various provisions and levies, arguing they were illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner relied on previous judgments of coordinate benches of the High Court. Respondents' arguments: The judgment does not record specific arguments made by the respondents. It notes that the matter was decided based on previous pronouncements.