Allowed

Smt K Chandramma v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC16 Jul 2025WP/12603/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged a BBMP demand notice imposing ground rent, licence fee, scrutiny fee, betterment charges and cesses for building plan sanction. Following earlier coordinate bench decisions in Sunderam Shetty and M/s Sapthagiri Shelters, the Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the demand notice and directed BBMP to process the building licence and sanction plan.

What did the court decide?

Demand notice dated 14.10.2020 set aside; BBMP directed to issue fresh/modified sanction plan and process building licence application without insisting on the impugned levies.

Smt K Chandramma Vs the State of Karnataka — Municipal and Town Planning | Karnataka HC (2025)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:26309 WP No. 12603 of 2020

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF JULY, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 12603 OF 2020 (LB-BMP) BETWEEN:

¶7

SMT. K. CHANDRAMMA, W/O LATE G. NARAYANA SWAMY NAIDU, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS

¶8

SRI. N. DWARAKISH S/O LATE G NARAYANA SWAMY NAIDU AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS

¶9

SRI. N. BALAJI S/O LATE G. NARAYANA SWAMY NAIDU AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS

¶10

SMT. HEMANTHI, D/O LATE G. NARAYANA SWAMY NAIDU, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,

¶11

Digitally signed by NAGARAJA B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

SRI. G. RAJAGOPAL NAIDU, S/O LATE G. GANGAIAH NAIDU, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,

¶13

SRI. R. DAYANAND KUMAR, S/O SRI G. RAJAGOPAL NAIDU, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,

¶14

SRI. R. DEEPAK KUMAR S/O SRI G RAJAGOPAL NAIDU AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS

¶15

PETITIONER NO.1 TO 7 ARE RESIDING AT NO. 246, SARAKKI MAIN ROAD J.P NAGAR, 1ST PHASE BANGALORE - 560 078.

¶16

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:26309 WP No. 12603 of 2020

¶17

HC-KAR

¶18

SRI. G. PURUSHOTHA, S/O LATE GANGAIAH NAIDU AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS RESIDING AT NO. 166, PIPELINE ROAD KANAKAPURA ROAD WEST, SARAKKI GATE, BANGALORE - 560 078.

¶19

SRI. P. ESHWAR KUMAR, S/O SRI G PURUSHOTHAM, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, R/AT NO. 166, PIPELINE ROAD, KANAKAPURA ROAD WEST, SARAKKI GATE, BANGALORE - 560 078.

¶20

SRI. P. DARSHAN KUMAR S/O SRI G PURUSHOTHAM AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS

¶21

PETITIONER NO.8 TO 10 ARE RESIDING AT NO. 166, PIPELINE ROAD KANAKAPURA ROAD WEST, SARAKKI GATE, BANGALORE - 560 078.

¶22

SMT. MOHAN KUMARI G D/O LATE GANGAIAH NAIDU ABED ABOUT 54 YEARS R/AT NO. 18, 1ST CROSS S.RAMA RAO LAYOUT, KATTRHRIGUPPE BSK 3RD STAGE, BANGALORE - 560 085.

¶23

SMT. BHARATHI BABU G D/O LATE GANGAIAH NAIDU AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS R/AT NO. 7, 1ST MAIN 2ND BLOCK, THYAGARAJANAGAR BANGALORE - 560 028.

¶24

…PETITIONERS

¶25

(BY SRI. B. PRAMOD, ADVOCATE AND SRI. G.V. SUDHAKAR, ADVOCATE)

¶26

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:26309 WP No. 12603 of 2020

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

AND:

¶29

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THE URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, VIKASA SOUDHA, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE - 560 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶30

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THE LABOUR DEPARTMENT VIKASA SOUDHA, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE - 560 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS UNDER SECRETARY.

¶31

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS AND LEGISLATION, VIKASA SOUDHA, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE - 560 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶32

BRUHATH BANGALORE MAHANAGAR PALIKE N.R. SQUARE, BANGALORE - 560 002, REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER.

¶33

THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR TOWN PLANNING (SOUTH), BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE, BBMP COMPLEX, 9TH CROSS, 9TH MAIN ROAD, JAYANAGAR 2ND BLOCK BANGALORE - 560 011.

¶34

…RESPONDENTS

¶35

(BY SRI. H.K. KENCHEGOWDA, AGA FOR R1 TO R3; SRI. B.L. SANJEEV, ADVOCATE FOR R4 AND R5)

¶36

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-QUASH SECTION 18-A OF THE KARNATAKA TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING

¶37

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:26309 WP No. 12603 of 2020

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

ACT, 1961 BROUGHT INTO EFFECT BY KARNATAKA ACT NO.23 OF 2004 (KARNATAKA TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (AMENDMENT) ACT, 1998) AS CONTAINED IN ANNEXURE-G1 INSOFAR AS SECTION 18-A(1) AND (iv) OF THE KARNATAKA ACT NO.23 OF 2004 IS CONCERNED AND ETC.,

¶40

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

¶41

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶42

ORAL ORDER

¶43

The caption petition is filed seeking the following

¶44

reliefs:

¶45

“WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to:

¶46

i) grant an order, direction or writ in the nature of Certiorari quashing Section 18-A of the Karnataka Town & Country Planning Act, 1961 brought into effect by Karnataka Act No.23 of 2004 (Karnataka Town & Country Planning (Amendment) Act, 1998) as contained in ANNEXURE-G1 insofar as Section 18-A(1) and (iv) of the Karnataka Act No. 23 of 2004 is concerned;

¶47

ii) Grant an order, direction or writ in the nature of Certiorari quashing the Notification issued by the 1st Respondent bearing No. UDD 3 TPP 2015 dated 25/02/2020 as contained in ANNEXURE-G insofar as the inserted Rule 37-A and 37-C is concerned;

¶48

¶49

NC: 2025:KHC:26309 WP No. 12603 of 2020

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

iii) issue a writ or order by way of certiorari quashing the circular dated 04/09/2015, bearing No. Heninayo/JD(N)/DM3/PR/320/2015-16 issued by the Respondent No.4 (Annexure-E) in so far the Petitioners are concerned.

¶52

iv) issue a writ or order by way of certiorari quashing the circular dated 14/08/2020, bearing No. He.Ni.Ka.Pa.Ko/P.R/320/2020-21 issued by the Respondent No.4 (Annexure-H) in so far the Petitioners are concerned.

¶53

v) issue a writ or order by way of certiorari quashing the Government order bearing No.LD/300/LET/2006 dated 18/01/2007 and the corrigendum order No.LD/300/LET/2006, dated 28/02/2007 issued by the bearing Respondent No.2 mandating upfront collection of labour welfare cess (Annexure-F) in so far the Petitioners are concerned.

¶54

vi) issue a writ or order by way of certiorari quashing the demand notice dated 14/10/2020, bearing No.BBMP/Ad.Com/SUT/0569/20-21, issued by the Respondent No.5 (Annexure-D) for demanding in so far it is concerned to Ground rent, GST on Ground rent, Betterment charges for building, Betterment charges for site, excess Security deposit, revised License fee, revised scrutiny fee, Cess for water supply scheme, Surcharge for formation outer ring road, Cess for improvement of slum, Surcharge for Mass Rapid Transport System, Labour cess and etc., as illegal, without jurisdiction and arbitrary.

¶55

vii) issue a writ or order or direction by way of mandamus directing the Respondent No.4 and 5 BBMP to issue the sanction plan for construction of Residential Multi Dwelling Units Building in the Schedule Property without insisting the Ground rent, GST on Ground rent, Betterment charges for building, Betterment charges for site, excess Security deposit, revised License fee, revised scrutiny fee, Cess for water supply scheme, Surcharge for formation outer ring road, Cess for improvement of slum, Surcharge for Mass Rapid Transport System, Labour cess and etc., and

¶56

¶57

NC: 2025:KHC:26309 WP No. 12603 of 2020

¶58

HC-KAR

¶59

viii) pass any such other order(s) as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity.”

¶60

The Co-ordinate Benches of this Court, in

¶61

W.P.No.23086/2022 and connected matters(herein

¶62

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.

¶63

In Sunderam Shetty and connected cases, the Co-ordinate 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.

¶64

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

¶65

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:26309 WP No. 12603 of 2020

¶66

HC-KAR

¶67

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.

¶68

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.

¶69

In light of the authoritative pronouncements, the

¶70

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.

¶71

Accordingly, this Court proceeds to pass the following:

¶72

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:26309 WP No. 12603 of 2020

¶73

HC-KAR

¶74

ORDER

¶75

i. The writ petition is allowed .

¶76

ii. The impugned demand notice dated 14.10.2020 issued by respondent No.5 as per Annexure-D is hereby set-aside.

¶77

iii. Respondent - BBMP is hereby directed to issue fresh/modified plan as the case may be.

¶78

iv. Respondent - BBMP is directed to forthwith process the petitioner’s application seeking building license and sanction of the building plan, strictly in accordance with law.

¶79

v. It is made clear that the issuance of the building license and approval of the plan shall not be withheld merely on the ground that the BBMP is contemplating to file an appeal against the reported judgment.

¶80

¶81

NC: 2025:KHC:26309 WP No. 12603 of 2020

¶82

HC-KAR

¶83

vi. If the building license and sanction plan are issued, the same shall be subject to the outcome of any appeal that may be filed by the BBMP against the said judgment.

¶84

Pending applications, if any, are also

¶85

disposed off.

¶86

Sd/(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE

¶87

KAV

¶88

List No.: 2 Sl No.: 11 CT: BHK

Smt K Chandramma v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt K Chandramma 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Kalegowda D S Vs Chief Excutive Officer

Mr.D.Purushothama Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Mruthyunjaya Vs the Commissioner Bbmp

Sri a Sreekantappa Vs Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike

Mr C R Lokesh Vs the Commissioner

Sri K S Bharath Vs State of Karnataka