Smt. Nagaratna Vs the State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

Smt. Nagaratna Vs the State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition allowed; impugned demand notice dated 13.05.2020 (Annexure-A) set aside; Petitioner directed to submit representation for refund of excess fees, to be considered by Respondent-BBMP in accordance with law within 8 weeks of receipt; pending applications disposed off.

Issue for consideration

Whether Bye Laws 3.8 to 3.10 of the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagar Palike Building Bye Laws 2003 are unconstitutional and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. +3 more

Court's answer

The issues raised in the present writ petition are squarely covered by the binding decisions in 'Sunderam Shetty' and 'M/s Sapthagiri Shelters', wherein the relevant bye-laws and government circulars have been set aside.

Ratio / Principle

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.

Key takeaways

The impugned demand notice dated 13.05.2020 issued by respondent No.3 as per Annexure-A is set aside.ratio¶¶74
The Petitioner shall submit a representation seeking refund of excess fees paid; Respondent-BBMP shall consider the representation and pass orders in accordance with law, completing the exercise within a period of 8 weeks of receipt of the representation.ratio¶¶75

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution by thirteen individuals and a private company challenging Bye Laws 3.8 to 3.10 of the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagar Palike Building Bye Laws, 2003 (ground rent and allied levies) as unconstitutional and violative of Article 14, seeking quashing of a Demand Note bearing Ref. No. BBMP/Addl.Dir./JDNorth/LP/0464/2013-14 dated 13.05.2020 and refund of Rs. 11,47,724/- collected on 25.03.2015. Holding that the issues were squarely covered by the binding Coordinate Bench decisions in 'Sunderam Shetty' (W.P.No.36017/2018 and connected matters), which declared Ground Rent, License Fee, Building License Fee and Scrutiny Fee levies ultra vires and quashed Government Circulars dated 04.09.2015, 27.01.2017 and 30.03.2017, and in 'M/s Sapthagiri Shelters' (W.P.No.23086/2022 and connected matters), which struck down Karnataka Act No.01 of 2022 and Karnataka Act No.37 of 2024 and invalidated Clause 3.8 of the BBMP Building Bye-laws, 2003, the Court declined separate adjudication, allowed the petition in terms of the operative directions of those decisions, set aside the demand notice dated 13.05.2020 (Annexure-A), and directed BBMP to consider a representation for refund of excess fees within eight weeks.

1 -

NC: 2025:KHC:21555 WP No. 11042 of 2020

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 11042 OF 2020 (LB-TAX)

BETWEEN:

SMT.NAGARATNA

W/O.RAGHUNATH REDDY AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/AT NO.216 1^ST MAIN ROAD YESHWANTHAPURA BENGALURU-560 022

SHRI KRISHNA N. S/O.LATE NARAYANASWAMY AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS R/ AT NO.1141, 5^TH CROSS K.N.EXTENSION YESHWANTHPURA BENGALURU-560 022

Digitally signed by GAVRIBIDANUR SUBRAMANYA GUPTA SREENATH

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

SHRI RAMAIAH S/O.MUNISHYAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 86 YEARS

SMT.LAKSHMAMMA ALIAS AMMAIAMMA W/O.SHRI RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS

SMT.VENKATALAKSHMAMMA W/O.SHRI MUNIRAJU AND D/O.SHRI RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS

PETITIONER NOS.3 TO 5 ARE R/AT CHIKKAJALA

2 -

NC: 2025:KHC:21555 WP No. 11042 of 2020

HC-KAR

JALA HOBLI BENGALURU NORTH TALUK

SMT.KAMALAMMA W/O.LATE KRISHNAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS

SHRI RAJESH S/O.LATE KRISHNAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS

MS.SHILPA D/O.LATE KRISHNAMRUTHY AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS

SHRI SRINIVAS S/O.SHRI RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS

SHRI JAGADISH S/O.SHRI RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS

SMT.LALITHAMMA W/O.LATE RAJANNA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS

PETITIONER NOS.6 TO 11 ARE R/AT AGES LAYOUT NEW BEL ROAD BENGALURU-560 022

SHRI VENKATESH S/O.SHRI RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS

SMT.GEETHAMMA W/O.SHRI MANJUNATH AND D/O.RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:21555 WP No. 11042 of 2020

HC-KAR

PETITIONER NOS.12 & 13 ARE R/AT DHANALAKSHMI LAYOUT VIRUPAKSHAPURA VIDYARANYAPURA POST BENGALURU PETITIONER NOS.1 AND 13 ARE REPRESENTED BY THEIR GPA HOLDER MR.UPENDRA J. NO.34/2, GROUND FLOOR G-BLOCK, SAHAKARA NAGAR BENGALURU–560 092

M/S.UNIQUE INFRASTRUCTURE AND HOME PRIVATE LIMITED A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.34/1, G BLOCK 1^ST FLOOR, SAHAKARANAGAR BENGALURU-560 092 REPRESNTED BY ITS DIRECTOR AND AUTHORISED SIGNATORY MR.UPENDRA KUMAR J.

…PETITIONERS

(BY SRI T.N.VISWANATHA, ADVOCATE)

AND:

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 4^tTH FLOOR, VIKASA SOUDHA AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU-560 001

BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE HUDSON CIRCLE BENGALURU-560 002

4 -

NC: 2025:KHC:21555 WP No. 11042 of 2020

HC-KAR

REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER

JOINT DIRECTOR TOWN PLANNING (NORTH) N.R.SQUARE BENGALURU-560 002

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SMT.SPOORTHY V., HCGP FOR R-1; SRI ARAVIND M.NEGLUR, ADVOCATE FOR R-2 & R-3)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DECLARE THAT THE BYE LAWS 3.8 TO 3.10 OF THE BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGAR PALIKE BUILDING BYE LAWS, 2003 ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND VIOLATIVE OF ARTICEL 14 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA AND ETC.

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

ORAL ORDER

The petitioner is seeking for the following reliefs:

"a) DECLARE that Bye Laws 3.8 to 3.10 of the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagar Palike Building Bye Laws 2003 are unconstitutional and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India;

Alternative to Prayer (A)

b) DECLARE and hold that the 3^rd Respondent cannot impose or levy ground rent charges in

5 -

NC: 2025:KHC:21555 WP No. 11042 of 2020

HC-KAR

terms of the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagar Palike Building Bye Laws 2003 in respect of storage of building materials in private land or land belonging to the Petitioners or in any land that does not belong to the 2^nd and 3^rd Respondent;

c) ISSUE a writ in the nature of CERTIORARI and/or any such/other writ order or order to QUASH Demand Note bearing Ref. No. BBMP/ Addl.Dir./JDNorth/LP/0464/2013-14 dated 13.05.2020 produced at Annexure A; and

d) Consequently direct the Respondents to refund a sum of Rs. 11,47,724/-(Eleven Lakhs Forty Seven Thousand Seven Hundred and Twenty Four) illegally collected by the Respondent No. 3 on 25.03.2015 whilst issuing Sanction Plan."

2. 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.

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:21555 WP No. 11042 of 2020

HC-KAR

In Sunderam Shetty and connected cases, the Coordinate 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 similarly, in M/s Sapthagiri Shelters and connected matters, the Co-ordinate Bench struck down the 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.

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:21555 WP No. 11042 of 2020

HC-KAR

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:

ORDER

i) The writ petition is allowed.

ii) The impugned demand notice dated 13.05.2020 issued by respondent No.3 as per Annexure-A is hereby set-aside.

iii) Petitioner shall submit a representation seeking refund of excess fees paid. Respondent- BBMP shall consider this representation and pass orders in accordance with law. This exercise shall be accomplished by

8 -

NC: 2025:KHC:21555 WP No. 11042 of 2020

HC-KAR

Respondent- BBMP within a period of 8 weeks of receipt of representation.

Pending applications, if any, are also disposed off.

Sd/(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE

GSS

List No.: 2 Sl No.: 4