Mr M R Ramaiah vs. State Of Karnataka
Original PDF →No AI summary yet for this judgment.
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORAL ORDER
Petitioner in the captioned petition has sought the following reliefs: HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21306 a) Issue a writ of certiorari or similar writ or order or direction to quash the demand note (Challan / Memo) for payment of fee bearing L.P. No. BBMP/EoDB/CH/ 41110/21-22, dated 16.02.2022 vide ANNEXURE-C issued by respondent No.4 in so far as the demand of Rs. 19,65,714/- towards Ground Rent including CGST and SGST, Rs.21,20,185/- towards License Fee, Rs.10,62,600/- towards Scrutiny Fee, Rs.58,552/- towards Security deposit, Rs.10,62,600/- towards Fee U/s 18(1) of KTCP act (Betterment Levy) for building RS.12,07,144/- towards fee towards Fee U/s 18(1) of KTCP act (Betterment Levy) for site, Rs. 2,26,974/- towards Water Supply scheme (BWSSB), Ring Road (BDA),Rs.2,26,974/- towards Rs.1,13,487/- towards improving Slums(KSCB), Rs.11,34,872/- towards Mass Rapid Transport System (BDA), Rs. 85,115 Levy and collection of 5% surcharge to be paid to BBMP and Rs. 19,34,000/-towards II labour cess is concerned.
b) Issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents not to insist/demand the petitioner for the payment of fee as in Annexure-C except Lake Rejuvenation Cess, Administrative Charges, Road cutting Fee and Compound wall charges for issuance fresh plan approval in favor of petitioner and grant such other reliefs;
c) declare that the BBMP has no authority to collect the taxes under the guise of collection of ground rent and other fee as detailed, without sanction by the Government;
d) 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 No.4 without insisting for payment of amount mentioned above. HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21306 e) issue any other appropriate writ or order or direction deemed fit in the circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity.
It is brought to the notice of this Court that across the Bar, the issue is dealt by the Co-ordinate Bench in the reported judgment in W.P.No.23086/2022 and connected matters. The Co-ordinate Bench, while deciding the issue, has set-aside the Karnataka Municipal Corporations and Certain Other Law (Amendment) Act, 2021 (Karnataka Act No.01 of 2022) and the Karnataka Municipal Corporations and Certain Other Law (Amendment) Act, 2023, (Karnataka Act No.37 of 2024). Therefore, this Court deems it fit to cull out the operative portion of the order, which reads as under; "ORDER (i) The writ petitions are partly allowed. (ii) The Karnataka Municipal Corporations and Certain Other Law (Amendment) Act, 2021 (Karnataka Act No.01 of 2022), is hereby quashed and set aside. HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21306 (iii) The Karnataka Municipal Corporations and Certain Other Law (Amendment) Act, 2023, (Karnataka Act No.37 of 2024), is hereby quashed and set aside. (iv) It is hereby declared that the provisions contained in Section 18-A of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961, read with Rules 37-A and 37-C of the Karnataka Planning Authority Rules, 1965, are applicable only in respect of ‘Development Plan’ containing the proposal for construction on plots measuring more than 20,000 square meters in extent and not in respect of plots measuring less than 20,000 square meters. (v) It is hereby declared that if fee has been earlier collected for change of land use or while approving a layout plan, fee shall not be collected for subsequent ‘Development Plan’ in terms of the ‘Note’ found below TABLE I of Rule 37-A of the Karnataka Planning Authority Rules, 1965. (vi) It is hereby declared that the linking of the fee leviable under Rule 37-A of the Karnataka Planning Authority Rules, 1965, to the ‘market value’ or ‘guidance value’ as determined under Section 45-B of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957, is illegal. However, liberty is reserved to the respondent-State Government and the BBMP to re-fix a standard after collecting empherical data. HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21306 (vii) Consequently, all the impugned Circulars which seek to give effect to the Rules 37-A and 37-C of the Karnataka Planning Authority Rules, 1965, are hereby quashed and set aside. (viii) It is hereby declared that Clause 3.8 of the Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Building Bye- laws, 2003, providing for ‘Ground Rent’, is illegal and are accordingly quashed and set aside. (ix) Consequently, all the impugned Demand Notices raised by the respondent-BBMP, in respect of the writ petitioners herein are also quashed and set aside. It would be advisable that the BBMP may come out with a scheme for ‘One Time Settlement’ and settle the levy and collect the fee generally acceptable to the citizens of Bengaluru. This would also augment the present situation."
In the present writ petition, the core issue raised stands substantially covered and decided by the authoritative pronouncement of the coordinate bench, wherein the writ petitions were partly allowed and several consequential reliefs were granted. The Hon’ble Court, in unequivocal terms, quashed and set aside the Karnataka Municipal Corporations and Certain Other Law HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21306 (Amendment) Acts of 2021 and 2023 (Karnataka Act Nos.01 of 2022 and 37 of 2024 respectively).
The Court further declared that the provisions under Section 18-A of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961, read with Rules 37-A and 37-C of the Karnataka Planning Authority Rules, 1965, are applicable only to development proposals concerning plots exceeding 20,000 square meters, and not to smaller plots. Importantly, it was also held that if a fee has been previously collected for change of land use or approval of layout plan, no further fee shall be levied for subsequent development plans, in view of the explanatory 'Note' to Table I of Rule 37-A.
The Court declared illegal the linkage of such levies to market or guidance value under Section 45-B of the Karnataka Stamp Act, and consequently, quashed all Circulars and demand notices issued to give effect to such unlawful interpretations. Clause 3.8 of the BBMP Building HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21306 Bye-laws, 2003, imposing 'Ground Rent', was also struck down.
In view of these comprehensive declarations and findings, it is submitted that the controversy raised in the present writ petition no longer survives for adjudication independently, as it is squarely covered by the binding judgment of the coordinate bench. In the light of the law laid down in the reported judgment, substantially covering the issue, which is raised in the captioned writ petition, the writ petition is liable to be allowed strictly aligning to the operative portion of the said writ petition.
In view of the above, this Court proceeds to pass the following; ORDER (i) The writ petition is allowed. (ii) The impugned demand notice dated 16.02.2022 issued by respondent No.4 as per Annexure-C is hereby set-aside. HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21306 (iii) Respondent Nos.3 and 4 are hereby directed to issue fresh sanction plan forthwith. (iv) Respondent Nos.3 and 4 are hereby 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 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 licence and sanction plan are issued, the same shall be subjected to the outcome of any appeal that may be filed by the BBMP against the judgment. Pending applications, if any, are also disposed off. (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE PB List No.: 2 Sl No.: 12
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.