M/S Amrutha Rama Constructions PVT LTD vs. State Of Karnataka
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/s Amrutha Rama Constructions Pvt Ltd., filed a writ petition challenging a demand notice dated January 20, 2021, issued by the Joint Director, Town Planning (North), Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP). The demand notice included various charges such as ground rent, GST, scrutiny fee, license fee, betterment fee, security deposit, and various surcharges and 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, and related government orders and notifications. The petitioner also sought a direction to issue building plan and license without insisting on payment of the disputed demands.
Held
The 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 of the High Court in cases like 'M/s Sapthagiri Shelters' and 'Sunderam Shetty'. In these prior judgments, levies such as 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 Court had previously struck down Karnataka Act No. 01 of 2022 and Karnataka Act No. 37 of 2024, finding the linking of fees to market/guidance value under Section 45-B of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957, to be illegal. Clause 3.8 of the BBMP Building Bye-laws, 2003, concerning ground rent, was also declared invalid. Consequently, the impugned demand notice dated January 20, 2021, was set aside. The BBMP was directed to process the petitioner's application for building license and sanction of the building plan strictly in accordance with law, without withholding them based on the contemplation of an appeal. The issuance of the license and plan would be subject to the outcome of any appeal filed by the BBMP.
Key Issues
1. Whether the demand notice dated January 20, 2021, issued by the Joint Director, Town Planning (North), BBMP, is liable to be quashed in so far as it demands various charges including ground rent, GST, license fee, and other levies? 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 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(i) and (iv) of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961, as amended, are liable to be quashed? 5. Whether amended Rule 37-A and Rule 37-C of the Karnataka Planning Authority Rules, 1965, are liable to be quashed? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the demands made 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 related to the levies. The petitioner relied on previous judgments of coordinate benches of the High Court. Revenue/State's Contention: The judgment does not record specific arguments from the respondents. However, the respondents are the State of Karnataka and the BBMP, who issued the impugned demand notice and bye-laws.
Sections Cited
Section 45-B, Rule 37-A, Rule 37-C, 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: HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20833 "(i) Issue a writ of certiorari or similar writ or order or direction to quash the demand notice No.BBMP/ Addl.Dir/JDCENTRAL/LP/0012/2019-20 dated 20.01.2021 at Annexure-D issued by the respondent No.4 only in so far as the demand of Rs.25,08.147/- towards Ground Rent, Rs.4,51,467/- towards GST, Rs.2,50,815/- towards scrutiny Fee, Rs.22,98,335/-towards License Fee, Rs.5,10,741/- towards Betterment fee for building, Rs.25,53,705/- towards security deposit, surcharge of Rs.7,82,882/- towards water supply scheme (BWSSB). Rs.7,82,882/- towards Ring Road(BDA), Rs.3,91,441/- towards improving slums (KSCB), Rs.19,57,204/- towards Mass Rapid Transport System(BDA), levy and collection of 5% cess on surcharge, 1% administrative charges on Labour Cess and labour cess of Rs.41,21,000/- 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-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 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 HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20833 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.1 dated nil signed on 20.01.2021 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 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. HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20833
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.
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: HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20833 ORDER (i) The writ petition is allowed. (ii) The impugned demand notice dated 20.01.2021 issued by respondent No.4 as per Annexure-D is hereby set-aside. (iii) Respondent Nos.3 and 4 are 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 BBMP is contemplating to file an appeal against the reported judgment. HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20833 (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.: 25
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.