Full Judgment
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO.13255 OF 2024 (LB-BMP) BETWEEN: M/S THIRUMALA DEVELOPERS, OFFICE AT SHREE BRAHMANI FASHION, 118, 1ST MAIN ROAD, KALKERE, BENGALURU-560043 REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR MR. REDDY THIRUMALA REDDY S/O VIJAYABASKAR REDDY, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS. …PETITIONER (BY SRI VISHWANATH H.M., ADVOCATE) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
Digitally signed by URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, MAHALAKSHMI B M 4TH FLOOR, VIKAS SOUDHA, Location: HIGH DR. AMBEDAKR VEEDHI, COURT OF BENGALURU-560001.KARNATAKA
2. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS AND LEGISLATION, VIDHANA OSUDHA, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560001.
3. THE COMMISSIONER, BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, N.R. SQUARE, BENGALURU-560002. -2-
4. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, TOWN PLANNING-MAHADEVAPURA, BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, RHB COLONY, WHITEFIELD MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU-560048. …RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. SPOORTHY V., HCGP FOR R-1 & R-2; SRI K.B. MONESH KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R-3 & R-4) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED DEMAND NOTICE DATED 12.04.2024 BEARING NO.LPNO.BBMP/AD.COM./MDP/1321/23-24 ISSUED BY 4TH RESPONDENT IN SO FAR IT RELATES TO DEMAND OF RS.79,623/-
TOWARDS GROUNDS RENT INCLUDING CGST AND SGST, RS.1,34,955/- TOWARDS LICENSE FEE RS.2,222/- TOWARDS SCRUTINY FEE, RS.29,990/- TOWARDS U/S 18 OF KTCP(BETTERMENT FEE) BUILDING AREA, RS.44,567/- TOWRDS FEE U/S 18 OF KTCP (BETTERMENT FEE) SITE AREA, RS.4,457/- TOWARDS WATER SUPPLY CESS (BWSSB), RS.1,200/- TOWARDS COMPOUND WALL CHARGES RS.5,457/- RING ROAD SURCHAGE, RS.2,228/- TOWARDS CESS FOR IMPROVEMENT OF SLUMS (KSCB), RS.22,284/- TOWARDS MASS RAPID TRANSPORT SYSTEM (BDA), 5% ADMINISTRATIVE CHARGES TO BBMP ON CESS AND SURCHARGE OF RS.1,671/- AND RS.2,74,409/- TOWARDS LABOUR CESS, ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.4 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A AND ETC. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM -3-
ORAL ORDER
The captioned petition is filed seeking following reliefs:
“a. Quash the impugned demand notice dated 12.04.2024, bearing No.LPNo.BBMP/Ad.Com./MDP/ to demand of Rs.79,623/- towards Ground Rent including CGST and SGST, Rs.1,34,955/- towards License Fee, Rs.-2,222/- towards Scrutiny Fee, Rs.29,990/- towards fee u/s 18 of KTCP (Betterment fee) building area, Rs.44,567/- towards fee u/s 18 of KTCP (Betterment fee) site area, Rs.4,457/- towards Water Supply cess (BWSSB), Rs.1,200/- towards compound wall charges, Rs.5,457/- Ring Road Surcharge, Rs.2,228/- towards cess for improvement of slums (KSCB), Rs.22,284/- towards Mass Rapid Transport System (BDA), 5% administrative charges to BBMP on cess and surcharge of Rs.1,671/- and Rs.2,74,409/- towards labour cess, issued by the respondent No.4 produced at ANNEXURE- A.
b. Quash the Karnataka Municipal Corporations and Certain Other Law (Amendment) Act, 2021 Act No.1/2022 dated 13.01.2022 enacted by the second Respondent published through notification bearing No.DPAL 50 SHASANA 2021 gazetted on 13.01.2022 at ANNEXURE-F declaring it to be ultra-vires and unconstitutional. -4- c. Quash the office order bearing No.ADTP/PR/461/2021-22 dated 09.03.2022 issued by the third Respondent at ANNEXURE-G; d. Quash the Circular bearing No.He.Ni.Ka.Pa.Ko/P.R./320/2020-21 dated 14.08.2020 at ANNEXURE-H issued by the 3rd Respondent; e. Quash the 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-J, in so far as 18-A(i) and (iv) of Karnataka Act No.23 of 2004 is concerned. f. Quash the Notification issued by the 1st Respondent bearing No.UDD 3 TPP 2015 dated 25.02.2020 as contained in ANNEXURE-K in so far as the amended Rule 37-A and Rule 37-C are concerned; g. Issue any other appropriate writ or order or direction to the Respondents deemed fit in the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity.”
2. 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 -5- 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.
(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. -6-
(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.
(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 -7- the levy and collect the fee generally acceptable to the citizens of Bengaluru. This would also augment the present situation."
3. 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 (Amendment) Acts of 2021 and 2023 (Karnataka Act Nos.01 of 2022 and 37 of 2024 respectively).
4. 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 -8- 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.
5. 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 Bye-laws, 2003, imposing 'Ground Rent', was also struck down.
6. 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 -9- captioned writ petition, the writ petition is liable to be allowed strictly aligning to the operative portion of the said writ petition.
7. In view of the above, this Court proceeds to pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The writ petition is allowed.
(ii) The impugned demand notice signed 12.04.2024 issued by respondent No.4 as per Annexure-A 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 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 - 10 - 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 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. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE MBM List No.: 2 Sl No.: 3