Sri Rajappareddy vs. State Of Karnataka
Original PDF →No AI summary yet for this judgment.
Before: DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
Petitioners, in the captioned petition has sought for following reliefs : (a) issue a writ of certiorari or similar writ or order or direction to quash the demand notice L.P. No.BBMP /Ad.Com./BMH/1001/20-21, dated 11.02.2021 vide ANNEXURE-C issued by respondent No.4 in so far as the demand of Rs.3,21,422.80/- towards Ground Rent including CGST and SGST, Rs.6,05,316/- towards security deposit, Rs.7,56,645/- towards License Fee, Rs.1,51,329/- towards Scrutiny Fee, Rs.2,45,819/- towards Water Supply scheme(BWSSB), Rs.2,45,819/- towards Ring Road(BDA), Rs.1,22,909/- towards improving Slums(KSCB), Rs.6,14,546/- towards Mass Rapid Transport System (BDA), 5% levy service charges payable to BBMP of Rs.64,689/- and Rs.10,91,000/- towards II Karnataka State Building and other Construction Workers Welfare Board labour cess is concerned. (b) 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 HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22987 dated 28/02/2007 directing upfront collection of labour welfare cess, as contained in ANNEXURE-G. (c) 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-E in so far as 18-A(i) and (iv) of Karnataka Act No.23 of 2004 concerned. (d) grant an order, direction or writ in the nature of Certiorari quashing the Notification issued by the 1st Respondent bearing No. UDD 3 TTP 2015dated 25.02.2020 as contained in ANNEXURE-F in sofar as the amended Rule 37-A and Rule 37-C are concerned; (e) Issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction declaring that Bye-law No.3.9 in the Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Building Bye-laws, 2003 framed under the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act as unconstitutional, arbitrary, illegal and ultra vires: (f) issue writ of mandamus or similar writ or order or direction directing the respondent Nos.3 and 4 to issue building fresh plan and license pursuant to their communication issued by the respondent HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22987 No.4 without insisting for payment of amount mentioned above. (g) issue any other appropriate writ or order or direction 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. 4. Similarly, in M/s Sapthagiri Shelters and connected matters, the Co-ordinate Bench struck down the HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22987 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:22987 ORDER (i) The writ petition is allowed. (ii) The impugned demand notice dated 11.02.2021 issued by respondent No.4 as per Annexure-C is hereby set-aside. (iii) Respondent - BBMP is hereby directed to issue fresh sanction plan. (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. (vi) If the building license and sanction plan are issued, the same shall be subject to the outcome of any appeal that may be HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22987 filed by the BBMP against the said judgment. Pending applications, if any, are also disposed off. (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE SMJ 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.