Dr.Laxman S/O Hanamanthappa Bidari v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC26 Nov 2025WA/435/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court at Bengaluru; WA No. 435/2016 c/w WA Nos. 1691 and 1693/2014 and WA Nos. 437, 439, 440, 443, 449, 452, 455/2016 (LB-RES); decided 26.11.2025; lake rejuvenation cess/fee; Section 18-A(1)(v) Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act 1961 omitted by Amendment Act 2015; Section 18(1A) additional fee Rs. 1 lakh per acre; Vijayapura Urban Development Authority; Article 243(x) Constitution; Entry 66 List-II Seventh Schedule; Municipal Board Hapur v. Jassa Singh (1996) 10 SCC 377; Shirur Mutt 1954 SCR 1005; writ appeals dismissed.

What did the court decide?

None; the writ appeals were dismissed without any relief to the appellants, the impugned judgment and the order dated 30.08.2013 being left undisturbed. ¶¶245

Dr.Laxman S/O Hanamanthappa Bidari Vs the State of Karnataka — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the writ appeals were dismissed without any relief to the appellants, the impugned judgment and the order dated 30.08.2013 being left undisturbed.

¶¶245

Issue for consideration

Whether the Division Bench should interfere with the learned Single Judge's judgment and the order dated 30.08.2013 imposing cess/fees for lake rejuvenation. +2 more

¶¶240

Court's answer

Since the order dated 30.08.2013 was challenged in the writ petition only on the ground of the validity of clause (v) of Section 18A of the Act, 1961, the Court saw no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge or with the said order; nothing placed before the Court could entail upsetting the impugned judgment.

¶¶240

Ratio / Principle

Omission of clause (v) of Section 18-A(1) of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961 by the Amendment Act, 2015 would not have the effect of wiping out steps taken under the Amendment Act, 2011 prior to the enforcement of the Amendment Act, 2015.

¶¶229

Key takeaways

The notice/order dated 30.08.2013 impugned in the writ petition is stated to be passed under Section 18(1A) of the Act, 1961, and not under clause (v) of Section 18-A(1) inserted by the Amendment Act, 2011.ratio¶¶229

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Division Bench (Jayant Banerji and K. V. Aravind JJ.) dismisses ten writ appeals (LB-RES) against learned Single Judge orders upholding a demand of cess/fees for lake rejuvenation (additional fee of Rs. 1,00,000 per acre) under notice/order dated 30.08.2013. Held: (i) omission of clause (v) of Section 18-A(1) of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961 by the Amendment Act, 2015 (Karnataka Gazette Extra-ordinary, 10.09.2015) does not wipe out steps taken under the Amendment Act, 2011 prior to its enforcement; (ii) per the verifying affidavit of the Commissioner, Vijayapura Urban Development Authority, and the statement of objections in W.P.No.103478/2013, the demand was levied under Section 18(1A) of the 1961 Act in file No.NaPraVi/RuRe/2013-14/127 and not under Section 18-A(1)(v); (iii) as the writ petitions attacked the demand solely on the ground of the validity of clause (v) of Section 18A, no interference was called for with the impugned judgment or the order dated 30.08.2013. The Supreme Court precedents Municipal Board, Hapur v. Jassa Singh, (1996) 10 SCC 377, and Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments v. Lakshmeendra Thirtha Swamiyar of Shri Shirur Mutt, 1954 SCR 1005, together with Article 243(x) of the Constitution and Entry 66 of List-II, Seventh Schedule, figured in the impugned Single Judge judgment (referred, not independently applied by the Division Bench).

¶1

NC: 2025:KHC:49020-DB WA No. 435 of 2016 C/W WA No. 1691 of 2014 WA No. 1693 of 2014 AND 7 OTHERS

¶2

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 26^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI

¶8

AND

¶9

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND WRIT APPEAL NO. 435 OF 2016 (LB-RES) C/W

¶10

Digitally signed by K G RENUKAMBA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

WRIT APPEAL NO. 1691 OF 2014 (LB-RES) WRIT APPEAL NO. 1693 OF 2014 (LB-RES) WRIT APPEAL NO. 437 OF 2016 (LB-RES) WRIT APPEAL NO. 439 OF 2016 (LB-RES) WRIT APPEAL NO. 440 OF 2016 (LB-RES) WRIT APPEAL NO. 443 OF 2016 (LB-RES) WRIT APPEAL NO. 449 OF 2016 (LB-RES) WRIT APPEAL NO. 452 OF 2016 (LB-RES) WRIT APPEAL NO. 455 OF 2016 (LB-RES)

¶12

IN WA No. 435/2016

¶13

BETWEEN:

¶14

DR.LAXMAN, S/O HANAMANTHAPPA BIDARI, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, OCC:DOCTOR,

¶15

¶16

NC: 2025:KHC:49020-DB WA No. 435 of 2016 C/W WA No. 1691 of 2014 WA No. 1693 of 2014 AND 7 OTHERS

HC-KAR

R/O BLDE ROAD,

VIJAYAPUR-586 101.

…APPELLANT

(BY SRI.AJAY KUMAR.A.K. ADVOCATE)

¶22

AND:

¶23

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT, M.S.BUILDING,

¶24

BANGALORE-560 001.

¶25

THE COMMISSIONER, VIJAYAPUR URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, VIJAYPUR-586 101.

¶26

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, VIJAYPUR-586 101.

¶27

…RESPONDENTS

¶28

(BY SRI.Y.H.VIJAYAKUMAR, AAG ALONG WITH SRI.K.S.RAHUL CARIAPPA, AGA FOR R1 AND R3, SRI.S.S.HALALLI, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶29

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER U/S. 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, BY THE ADVOCATE FOR APPELLANT PRAYING THAT THIS HON’BLE COURT TO, ALLOW THE WRIT APPEAL AND SET-ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 29.01.2015, IN W.P.NO.103478/2013 (LB-RES), AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW WRIT PETITION, IN THE INTERST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶30

NC: 2025:KHC:49020-DB WA No. 435 of 2016 C/W WA No. 1691 of 2014 WA No. 1693 of 2014 AND 7 OTHERS

¶31

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

IN WA NO. 1691/2014

¶34

BETWEEN:

¶35

M/S. EXPERT REALTORS PVT LTD, PRIDE ELITE, G2,NO.10, MUSEUM ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR SRI.B.R.RAVINDRA.

¶36

...APPELLANT

¶37

(BY SRI.H.SRINIVAS RAO. ADVOCATE)

¶38

AND:

¶39

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, VIKASA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560 001.

¶40

BANGALORE METROPOLITAN REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, ALI ASKAR ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.

¶41

ANEKAL PLANNING AUTHORITY ANEKAL,BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-560 099, REPRESENTED BY ITS MEMBER SECRETARY.

¶42

...RESPONDENTS

¶43

NC: 2025:KHC:49020-DB WA No. 435 of 2016 C/W WA No. 1691 of 2014 WA No. 1693 of 2014 AND 7 OTHERS

¶44

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

(BY SRI.Y.H.VIJAYAKUMAR, AAG ALONG WITH SRI.K.S.RAHUL CARIAPPA, AGA FOR R1, SRI.YOGISH.D. NAIK, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3)

¶47

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION 3744243/2012 (LB-RES), DATED 09/06/2014.

¶48

IN WA NO. 1693/2014

¶49

BETWEEN:

¶50

M/S. EXPERT INVESTMENTS, NO.174, BYRASANDRA MAIN ROAD, JAYANAGAR EAST, 1ST BLOCK, BANGALORE-560 011, REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER, MR. B.R.RAVINDRA.

¶51

...APPELLANT

¶52

(BY SRI.H.SRINIVAS RAO, ADVOCATE)

¶53

AND:

¶54

STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, VIKASA SOUDHA, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE-560 001.

¶55

BANGALORE METROPOLITAN REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, ALI ASKAR ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001, REPRESENTED BY TIS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.

¶56

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:49020-DB WA No. 435 of 2016 C/W WA No. 1691 of 2014 WA No. 1693 of 2014

¶57

AND 7 OTHERS

¶58

HC-KAR

¶59

ANEKAL PLANNING AUTHORITY ANEKAL, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-560 099, REPRESENTED BY ITS MEMBER SECRETARY.

¶60

...RESPONDENTS

¶61

(BY SRI.Y.H.VIJAYAKUMAR, AAG ALONG WITH SRI.K.S.RAHUL CARIAPPA, AGA FOR R1, SRI.YOGISH D. NAIK ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3)

¶62

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO.13182187/2012 (LB-RES) DATED 09/06/2014.

¶63

IN WA NO. 437/2016

¶64

BETWEEN:

¶65

RACHANAGOUDA (RACHAPPA), S/O SHIVANAGOUDA PATIL, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, OCC: AGRL.

¶66

SRI.SIDDARAM, S/O SHIVAPUTRA BIRADAR, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, OCC:AGRL.

¶67

REP BY THEIR GPA HOLDER, SRI MAHAVEERCHAND, S/O GHEVARACHAND PAREKH, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, OCC:AGRL. & BUSINESS,

¶68

NC: 2025:KHC:49020-DB WA No. 435 of 2016 C/W WA No. 1691 of 2014 WA No. 1693 of 2014 AND 7 OTHERS

¶69

¶70

HC-KAR

¶71

R/O B.L.D.E. ROAD, VIJAYAPURA.

¶72

...APPELLANTS

¶73

(BY SRI.SHIVAYOGESHA SHIVAYOGIMATH, ADVOCATE FOR SMT.RATNA N SHIVAYOGIMATH. ADVOCATE)

¶74

AND:

¶75

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT, M.S.BUILDING, BANGALORE-1.

¶76

THE COMMISSIONER, VIJAYAPURA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, DIST:VIJAYAPURA-586 101.

¶77

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, VIJAYAPURA, DIST:VIJAYAPURA-586 101.

¶78

...RESPONDENTS

¶79

(BY SRI.Y.H.VIJAYAKUMAR, AAG ALONG WITH

¶80

SRI.K.S.RAHUL CARIYAPPA, AGA FOR R1 AND R3, SRI.S.S.HALALLI, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶81

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S. 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, BY THE ADVOCATE FOR APPELLANT PRAYING THAT THIS HON’BLE COURT TO, SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 29.1.2015 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN W.P.NO.201737/2014 (LBRES) AND W.P.NO.201759/2014 AND ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION FILED BY THE APPELLANT AS PRAYED FOR.

¶82

¶83

HC-KAR

¶84

NC: 2025:KHC:49020-DB WA No. 435 of 2016 C/W WA No. 1691 of 2014 WA No. 1693 of 2014 AND 7 OTHERS

¶85

IN WA NO. 439/2016

¶86

BETWEEN:

¶87

SMT.BHAGUDEVI, W/O MANIKCHAND PAREKH, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, OCC: HH WORK & AGRL., R/O BLDE ROAD, VIJAYAPURA.

¶88

...APPELLANT

¶89

(BY SRI.SHIVAYOGESHA SHIVAYOGIMATH, ADVOCATE FOR SMT.RATNA N SHIVAYOGIMATH. ADVOCATE)

¶90

AND:

¶91

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT, M S BUILDING, BENGALURU-1.

¶92

THE COMMISSIONER, VIJAYAPURA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, DIST:VIJAYAPURA-586 101.

¶93

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER , VIJAYAPURA, DIST:VEIJAYAPURA-586 101.

¶94

...RESPONDENTS

¶95

(BY SRI.Y.H.VIJAYA KUMAR, AAG ALONG WITH SRI.K.S.RAHUL CARIAPPA, AGA FOR R1 AND R3, SRI.S.S.HALALLI, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶96

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S.4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, BY THE ADVOCATE FOR APPELLANT PRAYING THAT THIS HON’BLE COURT TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 29.01.2015 PASSED BY THE SINGLE JUDGE

¶97

NC: 2025:KHC:49020-DB WA No. 435 of 2016 C/W WA No. 1691 of 2014 WA No. 1693 of 2014 AND 7 OTHERS

¶98

¶99

HC-KAR

¶100

IN W.P.NO.201735/2014 (LB-RES) AND ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION FILED BY THE APPELLANT AS PRAYED FOR.

¶101

IN WA NO. 440/2016

¶102

BETWEEN:

¶103

SRI.VINIT,

¶104

S/O KEVALCHAND RUNAWAL, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, R/O C/O SIDDHARTH REALITY (INDIA) PVT. LTD, LINGAD ROAD, VIJAYAPURA.

¶105

SRI .VIRUPAXAPPA, S/O SHANKARAPPA HANAMASHETTY, AGEDA BOUT 39 YEARS, OCC:AGRIL, C/O. R/O SIDDHARTH REALITY (INDIA) PVT. LTD, LINGAD ROAD, VIJAYAPURA.

¶106

...APPELLANTS

¶107

(BY SRI. SHIVAYOGESHA SHIVAYOGIMATH, ADVOCATE FOR SMT.RATNA N SHIVAYOGIMATH, ADVOCATE)

¶108

AND:

¶109

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY ITS SECRETARY, DEAPRTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT M S BUILDING, BANGALORE-1.

¶110

THE COMMISSIONER, VIJAYAPURA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, DIST:VIJAYAPURA-586 101.

¶111

THE DEPUTY COMISSIONER,

¶112

¶113

NC: 2025:KHC:49020-DB WA No. 435 of 2016 C/W WA No. 1691 of 2014 WA No. 1693 of 2014 AND 7 OTHERS

¶114

HC-KAR

¶115

VIJAYAPURA, DIST:VIJAYAPURA-586 101.

¶116

...RESPONDENTS

¶117

(BY SRI.Y.H.VIJAYAKUMAR, AAG ALONG WITH SRI.K.S.RAHUL CARIAPPA, AGA FOR R1 AND R3, SRI.S.S.HALALLI, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶118

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S. 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, BY THE ADVOCATE FOR APPELLANT PRAYING THAT THIS HON’BLE COURT TO, SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 21.01.2015 PASSED BY THE SINGLE JUDGE IN W.P.NO.101985 & 102066-67/2013 (LBRES) AND ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION FILED BY THE APPELLANTS AS PRAYED FOR.

¶119

IN WA NO. 443/2016

¶120

BETWEEN:

¶121

SRI.SHIVANAND, S/O SIDRAMMAPPA KADE ANGADI @ BIJJARAGI, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, OCC:AGRL.

¶122

SRI.MUREGENDRAPPA, S/O DANAPPA ARJUNAGI, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, OCC:AGRL.

¶123

SRI.SHIVAYYA, S/O TRIMUKHAYYA MATAPATI, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, OCC:AGRL.

¶124

10 -

¶125

NC: 2025:KHC:49020-DB WA No. 435 of 2016 C/W WA No. 1691 of 2014 WA No. 1693 of 2014 AND 7 OTHERS

¶126

HC-KAR

¶127

SRI.NAGAPPA,

¶128

S/O CHANNAMALLAPPA CHINCHALI, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS,

¶129

OCC:AGRL.

¶130

SRI.KAGONDAPPA, S/O MALAGONDAPPA PATIL, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, OCC:AGRL.

¶131

SRI.SANTOSH S/O BASALINGAPPA KIRASUR, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,

¶132

OCC:AGRL.

¶133

ALL ARE R/O VIJAYAPURA, REP. BY GPA HOLDER, SRI.VAGATAVARMAL, S/O GHEVARACHAND PAREKH, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, OCC:AGRL. AND BUSINESS, R/O B.L.D.E. ROAD, VIJAYAPURA.

¶134

...APPELLANTS

¶135

(BY SRI. SHIVAYOGESHA SHIVAYOGIMATH, ADVOCATE FOR SMT.RATNA N SHIVAYOGIMATH. ADVOCATE)

¶136

AND:

¶137

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT, M.S.BUILDING, BANGALORE-1.

¶138

THE COMMISSIONER VIJAYAPURA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,

¶139

11 -

¶140

NC: 2025:KHC:49020-DB WA No. 435 of 2016 C/W WA No. 1691 of 2014 WA No. 1693 of 2014 AND 7 OTHERS

¶141

HC-KAR

¶142

DIST:VIJAYAPURA-586 101.

¶143

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, VIJAYAPURA, DIST:VIJAYAPURA-586 101.

¶144

...RESPONDENTS

¶145

(BY SRI.Y.H.VIJAYAKUMAR, AAG ALONG WITH SRI.K.S.RAHUL CARIAPPA, AGA FOR R1 AND R3, SRI.S.S.HALALLI, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶146

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S. 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, BY THE ADVOCATE FOR APPELLANT PRAYING THAT THIS HON’BLE COURT TO, SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 29.01.2015 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN W.P.NO.201736/2014 (LBRES) & W.P.NO.201758/2014 & W.P.NO.201800-803/2014 AND ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION FILED BY THE APPELLANTS AS PRAYED FOR.

¶147

IN WA NO. 449/2016

¶148

BETWEEN:

¶149

SRI.MAHAVEER, S/O SHANKARLAL MEHTA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCC:AGRL. R/O RAJGURU ASHISH COMPLEX, MAHAVEER ROAD, VIJAYAPURA.

¶150

...APPELLANT

¶151

(BY SRI. SHIVAYOGESHA SHIVAYOGIMATH, ADVOCATE FOR SMT.RATNA N SHIVAYOGIMATH. ADVOCATE)

¶152

12 -

¶153

NC: 2025:KHC:49020-DB WA No. 435 of 2016 C/W WA No. 1691 of 2014 WA No. 1693 of 2014 AND 7 OTHERS

¶154

HC-KAR

¶155

AND:

¶156

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT, M.S.BUILDING, BANGALORE-1.

¶157

THE COMMISSIONER VIJAYAPURA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, DIST:VIJAYAPURA-586 101.

¶158

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, VIJAYAPURA,

¶159

DIST:VIJAYAPURA-586 101.

¶160

...RESPONDENTS

¶161

(BY SRI.Y.H.VIJAYAKUMAR, AAG ALONG WITH SRI.K.S.RAHUL CARIYAPPA, AGA FOR R1 AND R3, SRI.S.S.HALALLI, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶162

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S. 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 21.01.2015 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN W.P.NO.103407/2013 AND W.P.NO.10342526/2013 (LB-RES) AND ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION FILED BY THE APPELLANT AS PRAYED FOR.

¶163

IN WA NO. 452/2016

¶164

BETWEEN:

¶165

SRI.GURUPADAPPA, S/O SHIVAGONDAPPA NAGANOOR, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,

¶166

13 -

¶167

HC-KAR

¶168

NC: 2025:KHC:49020-DB WA No. 435 of 2016 C/W WA No. 1691 of 2014 WA No. 1693 of 2014 AND 7 OTHERS

¶169

R/O LINGAD ROAD, VIJAYAPURA.

¶170

...APPELLANT

¶171

(BY SRI.SHIVAYOGESHA SHIVAYOGIMATH, ADVOCATE FOR SMT. RATNA N SHIVAYOGIMATH. ADVOCATE)

¶172

AND:

¶173

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY ITS SECRETARY, DEAPRTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT, M.S.BUILDING, BANGALORE-1.

¶174

THE COMMISSIONER, VIJAYAPURA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, DIST:VIJAYAPURA-586 101.

¶175

THE DEPUTY COMISSIONER, VIJAYAPURA, DIST:VIJAYAPURA-586 101.

¶176

...RESPONDENTS

¶177

(BY SRI.Y.H.VIJAYAKUMAR, AAG ALONG WITH

¶178

SRI.K.S.RAHUL CARIYAPPA, AGA FOR R1 AND R3, SRI.S.S.HALALLI, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶179

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S. 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, BY THE ADVOCATE FOR APPELLANT PRAYING THAT THIS HON’BLE COURT TO, SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 21.01.2015 PASSED BY THE SINGLE JUDGE IN W.P.NO.10198/2013 AND W.P.NO.101988-999 (LB-RES) AND ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION FILED BY THE APPELLANTS AS PRAYED FOR.

¶180

14 -

¶181

HC-KAR

¶182

NC: 2025:KHC:49020-DB WA No. 435 of 2016 C/W WA No. 1691 of 2014 WA No. 1693 of 2014 AND 7 OTHERS

¶183

IN WA NO. 455/2016

¶184

BETWEEN:

¶185

SRI.VIJAY KUMAR, S/O GIRIDHARLAL MEHTA, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, OCC:AGRL, R/O RAJGURU ASHISH COMPLEX, MAHAVEER ROAD, VIJAYAPURA

¶186

...APPELLANT

¶187

(BY SRI.SHIVAYOGESHA SHIVAYOGIMATH, ADVOCATE FOR SMT.RATNA N SHIVAYOGIMATH. ADVOCATE)

¶188

AND:

¶189

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT, M.S.BUILDING, BANGALORE-1.

¶190

THE COMMISSIONER, VIJAYAPURA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, DIST: VIJAYAPURA-586 101.

¶191

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BIJAPUR, DIST: VIJAYAPURA-586 101.

¶192

...RESPONDENTS

¶193

(BY SRI.Y.H.VIJAYAKUMAR, AAG ALONG WITH SRI.K.S.RAHUL CARIAPPA, AGA FOR R1 AND R3, SRI.S.S.HALALLI, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶194

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 21.01.2015 PASED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE

¶195

NC: 2025:KHC:49020-DB WA No. 435 of 2016 C/W WA No. 1691 of 2014 WA No. 1693 of 2014 AND 7 OTHERS

¶196

15 -

¶197

HC-KAR

¶198

IN W.P.NO.103406/2013 AND W.P.NO.103424/2013 (LBRES) AND ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION FILED BY THE APPELLANT AS PRAYED FOR.

¶199

THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶200

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND

¶201

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶202

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI)

¶203

Heard the learned counsel for the appellants.

¶204

Under challenge in the Writ Petition was an

¶205

order imposing cess/fees for lake rejuvenation under purported exercise of powers conferred by clause (v) of Section 18A(1) of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning (Amendment) Act, 2011¹ . The aforesaid provision of the Amendment Act, 2011 was also challenged. The learned single Judge relying upon an order dated 21.01.2015 passed in W.P.No.103406/2013 and connected

¶206

1 Amendment Act, 2011

¶207

16 - NC: 2025:KHC:49020-DB WA No. 435 of 2016 C/W WA No. 1691 of 2014 WA No. 1693 of 2014 HC-KAR AND 7 OTHERS

¶208

petitions, wherein similar questions were raised, had noted observations made in previous judgments and found that the petition is squarely covered by the order passed in the aforesaid W.P.No.103406/2013, which would enable the Municipal Authorities to impose the cess / fee.

¶209

Learned counsel for the appellant has filed I.A.No.1/2017 and produced the Karnataka Town and Country Planning (Amendment) Act, 2015² which was published in the Karnataka Gazette Extra-ordinary on 10.09.2015. In Section 7 of which Amendment Act, 2015 it is provided as follows:

¶210

“ 7. Amendment of Section 18-A. – In section 18-A of the principal Act, the clause (v) shall be omitted.”

¶211

4. It is therefore contended that the amendment

¶212

brought about in Section 18-A of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961³ by the Amendment Act, 2011

¶213

by insertion of clause (v) in Sub-Section (1) of Section 18-

¶214

2 Amendment Act, 2015

¶215

3 Act, 1961

¶216

17 - NC: 2025:KHC:49020-DB WA No. 435 of 2016 C/W WA No. 1691 of 2014 WA No. 1693 of 2014 HC-KAR AND 7 OTHERS

¶217

A, has now been wiped out of statute books as if the provision never existed. Therefore, the notice/order dated 30.08.2013 that is impugned in the Writ Petition would be a nullity and deserves to be set aside. However, learned Additional Advocate General has stated that no order has been passed against the petitioner under the aforesaid provision of clause (v) of Section 18A of the Act, 1961. Therefore, there is no cause of action which the petitioner had to maintain the Writ Petition.

¶218

An affidavit has been filed today in Court, which is titled as verifying affidavit, filed by the Commissioner of M/s. Vijayapura Urban Development Authority. In that, it is stated as per Section 18(1A) an additional fee at the rate of rupees one lakh per acre of land for the purpose of rejuvenation of lakes or water bodies within the planning area was levied in the file No.NaPraVi/RuRe/2013-14/127

¶219

18 -

¶220

NC: 2025:KHC:49020-DB WA No. 435 of 2016 C/W WA No. 1691 of 2014 WA No. 1693 of 2014 AND 7 OTHERS

¶221

HC-KAR

¶222

and not as per Section 18-A(1)(v) of the Amendment Act,

¶223

¶224

The Amendment Act, 2015 omits clause (v) of

¶225

Section 18-A(1) of the Principal Act.

¶226

Clause (v) of the Principal Act read as follows:

¶227

“(v) a cess for the rejuvenation of lakes or water bodies.”

¶228

Therefore, omission of clause (v) of Section 18-

¶229

A(1) of the Act, 1961 would not have the effect of wiping out the steps taken under Amendment Act, 2011 prior to the enforcement of Amendment Act, 2015. Be that as it may, the notice/order dated 30.08.2013 is stated to be passed under Section 18(1A) of the Act, 1961.

¶230

We have perused the copy of the

¶231

affidavit/statement of objections filed by respondent No.2 in W.P.No.103478/2013. In that statement of objections, though in paragraph No.4 thereof, Section 18-A of the Act,

¶232

NC: 2025:KHC:49020-DB WA No. 435 of 2016 C/W WA No. 1691 of 2014 WA No. 1693 of 2014 HC-KAR AND 7 OTHERS

¶233

19 -

¶234

1961 was alluded to, however, what was quoted and relied upon therein was the provision of Section 18(1A) as it stood prior to its amendment in the year 2015.

¶235

In that light, the impugned judgment of the learned single Judge passed in W.P.No.103478/2013 on 29.01.2015 is required to be seen. We find from perusal of the judgment impugned that the same is based on another judgment of this Court and relying upon the provisions of Article 243(x) of the Constitution of India and a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of MUNICIPAL BOARD, HAPUR ETC VS. JASSA SINGH AND OTHERS⁴ wherein, it was held that competency of the State Legislature regarding the subject is found in Entry 66 of List-II in the Seventh schedule to the Constitution. Another judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of THE COMMISSIONER, HINDU RELIGIOUS ENDOWMENTS, MADRAS VS. LAKSHMEENDRA THIRTHA SWAMIYAR OF SHRI SHIRUR MUTT⁵ was considered

¶236

4 (1996) 10 SCC 377

¶237

5 1954 SCR 1005

¶238

20 - NC: 2025:KHC:49020-DB WA No. 435 of 2016 C/W WA No. 1691 of 2014 WA No. 1693 of 2014 HC-KAR AND 7 OTHERS

¶239

and it was held that in view of the object of the enactment, if the developers and builders are demanded to pay a fee for rejuvenation of lakes and the collection of the said fee is after the decision of an expert body and before doing that the State Legislature has brought amendment to the Act, it is to be held that the authorities have competency to do so. Nothing has been placed before the Court that could entail upsetting the judgment of the learned single Judge which is impugned in this appeal.

¶240

Since the order of 30.08.2013 that was challenged in the Writ Petition was sought to be challenged only on the ground of the validity of the offending amendment which was clause (v) of Section 18A of the Act, 1961, we see no reason to interfere in the aforesaid impugned judgment or in the aforesaid order of 30.08.2013.

¶241

21 -

¶242

NC: 2025:KHC:49020-DB WA No. 435 of 2016 C/W WA No. 1691 of 2014 WA No. 1693 of 2014 AND 7 OTHERS

¶243

HC-KAR

¶244

For the reasons aforesaid, this appeal lacks merit and

¶245

is therefore dismissed.

¶246

Sd/(JAYANT BANERJI) JUDGE

¶247

Sd/(K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE

¶248

BVK

¶249

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Judgment/order of the learned Single Judge dated 29.01.2015 in W.P.No.103478/2013 (LB-RES) (with companion Single Judge orders dated 21.01.2015 and 29.01.2015 in the other writ petitions), against which these writ appeals under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act are preferred.¶¶29
High Court of Karnataka (learned Single Judge) · 29.01.2015
Prior proceeding
Under challenge in the writ petitions was an order imposing cess/fees for lake rejuvenation under purported exercise of powers conferred by clause (v) of Section 18A(1) of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning (Amendment) Act, 2011; the Amendment Act, 2011 provision was also challenged.¶¶205
Prior proceeding
The learned Single Judge relied upon his order dated 21.01.2015 in W.P.No.103406/2013 and connected petitions, finding the petition squarely covered thereby, enabling Municipal Authorities to impose the cess/fee.¶¶208
Prior proceeding
Appellants filed I.A.No.1/2017 producing the Karnataka Town and Country Planning (Amendment) Act, 2015, published in the Karnataka Gazette Extra-ordinary on 10.09.2015, whose Section 7 omits clause (v) of Section 18-A of the principal Act; contended the notice/order dated 30.08.2013 was thereby a nullity.¶¶209
Prior proceeding
Text of the omitted clause (v) of Section 18-A(1): a cess for the rejuvenation of lakes or water bodies.¶¶227
Prior proceeding
Verifying affidavit filed by the Commissioner of Vijayapura Urban Development Authority stating that the additional fee of rupees one lakh per acre was levied under Section 18(1A) in file No.NaPraVi/RuRe/2013-14/127 and not under Section 18-A(1)(v) of the Amendment Act, 2011.¶¶218
Prior proceeding
Learned Additional Advocate General stated that no order was passed against the petitioner under clause (v) of Section 18A of the Act, 1961, and therefore there was no cause of action to maintain the writ petition.¶¶217
Prior proceeding
Statement of objections filed by respondent No.2 in W.P.No.103478/2013 alluded to Section 18-A of the Act, 1961, but quoted and relied upon Section 18(1A) as it stood prior to its amendment in 2015.¶¶234

Parties & counsel

AI extract

appellant
Dr. Laxman S/o Hanamanthappa Bidari (WA No. 435/2016)¶¶14
Sri Ajay Kumar A.K.
appellant
M/s. Expert Realtors Pvt Ltd, rep. by its Director Sri B.R. Ravindra (WA No. 1691/2014)¶¶35
Sri H. Srinivas Rao
appellant
M/s. Expert Investments, rep. by its Partner Mr. B.R. Ravindra (WA No. 1693/2014)¶¶50
Sri H. Srinivas Rao
appellant
Rachanagouda (Rachappa) and Sri Siddaram, rep. by GPA holder Sri Mahaveerchand (WA No. 437/2016)¶¶65
Sri Shivayogesha Shivayogimath (for Smt. Ratna N Shivayogimath, Advocate)
appellant
Smt. Bhagudevi W/o Manikchand Parekh (WA No. 439/2016)¶¶87
Sri Shivayogesha Shivayogimath (for Smt. Ratna N Shivayogimath, Advocate)
appellant
Sri Vinit and Sri Virupaxappa (WA No. 440/2016)¶¶104
Sri Shivayogesha Shivayogimath (for Smt. Ratna N Shivayogimath, Advocate)
appellant
Shivanand, Muregendrappa, Shivayya, Nagappa, Kagondappa and Santosh, rep. by GPA holder Sri Vagatavarmal (WA No. 443/2016)¶¶121
Sri Shivayogesha Shivayogimath (for Smt. Ratna N Shivayogimath, Advocate)
appellant
Sri Mahaveer S/o Shankarlal Mehta (WA No. 449/2016)¶¶149
Sri Shivayogesha Shivayogimath (for Smt. Ratna N Shivayogimath, Advocate)
appellant
Sri Gurupadappa S/o Shivagondappa Naganoor (WA No. 452/2016)¶¶165
Sri Shivayogesha Shivayogimath (for Smt. Ratna N Shivayogimath, Advocate)
appellant
Sri Vijay Kumar S/o Giridharlal Mehta (WA No. 455/2016)¶¶185
Sri Shivayogesha Shivayogimath (for Smt. Ratna N Shivayogimath, Advocate)
respondent
The State of Karnataka, by its Secretary, Department of Urban Development (Respondent No.1 — Vijayapura appeals WA Nos. 435, 437, 439, 440, 443, 449, 452, 455/2016)¶¶23
Sri Y.H. Vijayakumar (AAG), Sri K.S. Rahul Cariappa (AGA)
respondent
The Commissioner, Vijayapura Urban Development Authority (Respondent No.2 — Vijayapura appeals)¶¶76
Sri S.S. Halalli
respondent
The Deputy Commissioner, Vijayapura (Respondent No.3 — Vijayapura appeals)¶¶77
Sri Y.H. Vijayakumar (AAG), Sri K.S. Rahul Cariappa (AGA)
respondent
State of Karnataka, by its Principal Secretary, Housing and Urban Development (Respondent No.1 — WA Nos. 1691 and 1693/2014)¶¶39
Sri Y.H. Vijayakumar (AAG), Sri K.S. Rahul Cariappa (AGA)
respondent
Bangalore Metropolitan Regional Development Authority (Respondent No.2 — WA Nos. 1691 and 1693/2014)¶¶40
Sri Yogish D. Naik
respondent
Anekal Planning Authority (Respondent No.3 — WA Nos. 1691 and 1693/2014)¶¶41
Sri Yogish D. Naik

Coram

AI extract

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jayant Banerjiauthor¶¶202
Hon'ble Mr. Justice K. V. Aravindmember¶¶200

Dr.Laxman S/O Hanamanthappa Bidari v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr.Laxman S/O Hanamanthappa Bidari v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri K R Rajanna Vs Smt Sanjeevamma

Smt. Pallavi R Vs Sri. G S Vinod Raj

Smt C Anuradha Vs M Gopalakrishna

Sri Suresh Bhatia Vs Smt K Manjula

Sri a Raghupathy Bhat Vs the Board of Management of

Sri a Ramachandra Rao Vs the Secretary to Govt.