Sri Vinod Kumar K P vs. State Of Karnataka

Facts

The petitioner, Sri. Vinod Kumar K P, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Karnataka challenging a demand notice dated September 30, 2020, issued by the Assistant Director, Town Planning, Mahadevapura Zone, Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike (BBMP). The demand notice included various fees and charges such as scrutiny fee, license fee, ground rent, 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 petitioner also sought to declare Bye-law No. 3.9 of the Bangalore Mahanagara Palike Building Bye-laws, 2003, as unconstitutional, arbitrary, illegal, and ultravires. Additionally, the petition challenged government orders and provisions of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961, and amended rules.

Held

The High Court of Karnataka allowed the writ petition. The Court noted that coordinate benches of the same High Court had comprehensively adjudicated similar issues in previous cases, namely W.P. No. 23086/2022 (M/s Sapthagiri Shelters) and W.P. No. 36017/2018 (Sunderam Shetty). 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 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 to market/guidance value, and Clause 3.8 of the BBMP Building Bye-laws, 2003, pertaining to Ground Rent, was declared invalid. The Court held that the issues in the present petition were squarely covered by these binding decisions. Consequently, the impugned demand notice issued by respondent No. 4 was set aside. The BBMP was directed to issue a fresh/modified plan and forthwith process the petitioner's application for building license and plan sanction 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 any such appeal.

Key Issues

1. Whether Bye-law No. 3.9 of the Bangalore Mahanagara Palike Building Bye-laws, 2003, is unconstitutional, arbitrary, illegal, and ultravires, as contended by the petitioner. The petitioner argued that the bye-law is beyond the scope of the enabling Act and imposes levies that are not authorized. The respondents did not record any specific arguments on this point in the judgment. 2. Whether the levies demanded in the notice dated September 30, 2020, including scrutiny fee, license fee, ground rent, betterment fee, labour cess, and various surcharges, are legally sustainable, as challenged by the petitioner. The petitioner contended that these levies are not in accordance with the law and previous pronouncements of the Court. The respondents did not record any specific arguments on this point in the judgment. 3. Whether the Government Order dated January 18, 2007, and its corrigendum dated February 28, 2007, directing upfront collection of labour welfare cess, are valid. The petitioner sought to quash these orders. The respondents did not record any specific arguments on this point in the judgment. 4. Whether Section 18-A(i) and (iv) of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961, as amended, are valid. The petitioner sought to quash these provisions. The respondents did not record any specific arguments on this point in the judgment. 5. Whether amended Rule 37-A and Rule 37-C of the Karnataka Planning Authority Rules, 1965, are valid. The petitioner sought to quash the notification introducing these rules. The respondents did not record any specific arguments on this point in the judgment.