Partly allowed

M/S Gardenview Abode Private Limited v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC1 Sept 2022WP/50529/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed the writ petition in part, quashing the portion of a demand notice requiring payment towards ground rent and license fees, relying on a prior coordinate bench order that declared the relevant bye-laws ultra vires the Act.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed in part; demand notice dated 14.10.2019 quashed insofar as it related to Rs.11,50,648/- ground rent, Rs.2,07,117/- taxes, and Rs.23,482/- scrutiny fee.

M/S Gardenview Abode Private Limited Vs the State of… — Landlord and Tenant | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.50529/2019 (LB-BMP)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

M/S. GARDENVIEW ABODE PRIVATE LIMITED A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT 1956 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.41, VITTAL MALYA ROAD BENGALURU-560 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS DULY AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY SRI RAVI SHANKAR B.S. ...PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI SANJAY YADAV B., ADVOCATE FOR SRI MAHESH S. AND CO. ADVOCATES)

¶10

AND:

¶11

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS ADDITIONAL SECRETARY URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560 001.

¶12

THE COMMISSIONER BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE N.R. SQUARE, BANGALORE-560 002.

¶13

THE JOINT DIRECTOR TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (SOUTH) BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE N.R. SQUARE, BANGALORE-560 002.

¶14

...RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SRI SRINIVAS GOWDA, AGA FOR R-1; SRI AMIT DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE FOR R-2 & R-3)

¶16

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE CIRCULAR ISSUED BY THE R-2 COMMISSIONER DATED 04.09.2015 LEVYING GROUND RENT AND LICENSE FEE AND OTHER CHARGES FOR ISSUE OF RE-MODIFIED PLAN SANCTION AS CONTAINED IN ANNEXURE-K AND THE CONSEQUENT DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED BY THE R-3 JOINT DIRECTOR DATED 14.10.2019 CONTAINED IN ANNEXURE-J AND ETC.

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

This petition is filed challenging the demand notice dated 14.10.2019 at Annexure-J issued by the 3rd respondent calling upon the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.11,50,648/- towards ground rent, Rs.2,07,117/- towards CGST and SGST and Rs.23,482.00 towards scrutiny fee for sanctioning the building plan in favour of petitioner.

¶21

The issue involved in this writ petition was examined by the coordinate Bench of this Court in WP No.4601/2020, wherein it has held that the bye-laws under which ground rent, license fee and scrutiny fee are all held ultra vires the Act and are resultantly rendered unenforceable. Hence, this writ petition requires to be disposed of in the light of the order passed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in WP No.4601/2020. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶22

¶23

ORDER

¶24

i) Writ petition is allowed in part.

¶25

ii) The demand notice dated 14.9.2019 at Annexure-J issued by the 3rd respondent insofar as it relates to demanding a sum of Rs.11,50,648/- towards ground rent, Rs.2,07,117/towards CGST and SGST and Rs.23,482.00 towards scrutiny fee is hereby quashed and other demands made in the demand notice stands confirmed.

¶26

Sd/JUDGE

¶27

bkm

M/S Gardenview Abode Private Limited v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Gardenview Abode Private Limited v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Vs B M T F Police

Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Vs Bmtf Police Station

Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagar Palike Vs B.M.T.F. Police

Sri Kodur Venkatesh Vs the State of Karnataka

Vithola Residential Apartment Association Vs the State of Karnataka

T P Indrakumar Vs the Commissioner