Sri Sathyanarayan Vs the Bruhath Bangalore Mahanagara Palike

¶1

1 -

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:20505 WP No. 12942 of 2024

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

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

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 12942 OF 2024 (LB-BMP)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI SATHYANARAYAN SON OF SRI K R KRISHNASETTY, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.29 12TH MAIN 4TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, VTC, BANGALORE SOUTH BENGALURU 560011

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. PRAMODA GOWDA T P.,ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

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

¶13

THE BRUHATH BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE N R SQUARE BENGALURU 560002, REP BY ITS COMMISSIONER

¶14

STATE OF KARNATAKA THE URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, 4TH FLOOR, VIKASA SOUDHA, DR B R AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU 560001 REP BY ITS SECRETARY

¶15

THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR TOWN PLANNING SOUTH ZONE, BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE, 9TH CROSS, 9TH MAIN ROAD,

¶16

2 -

¶17

NC: 2025:KHC:20505 WP No. 12942 of 2024

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

2ND BLOCK JAYANAGAR BENGALURU 560011

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI. MONESH KUMAR K B.,ADVOCATE)

¶22

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES UNDER ARTICLE 226 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE DEMAND NOTICES DATED 15/03/2024 BEARING NOS. BBMP/EoDB/CH/57079/23-24 AND BBMP/EoDB/CH/57080/23-24, BOTH ISSUED BY THE R3 DEMANDING PAYMENT TOWARDS GROUND RENT (INCLUDING GST) AND LABOUR CESS AMOUNT AND OTHER ADDL. CHARGES AND LEVIES AT ANNEXURE-A AND B.

¶23

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

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

The petitioner is seeking for the following reliefs.

¶27

a) Issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ of like nature, or direction, quashing the demand notices dated 15/03/2024 bearing nos. BBMP/EoDB/CH/57079/2324 and BBMP/EoDB/CH/57080/23-24, both issued by the R3 demanding payment towards ground rent (including GST) and labour cess amount and other addl. Charges and levies at Annexure-A and B.

¶28

b) Grant such other and further relief/s as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case in the interests of justice and equity."

¶29

3 -

¶30

NC: 2025:KHC:20505 WP No. 12942 of 2024

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

It is brought to the notice of this Court that

¶33

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 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;

¶34

"ORDER

¶35

(i) The writ petitions are partly allowed.

¶36

(ii) The Karnataka Municipal Corporations and Certain Other Law (Amendment) Act, 2021 (Karnataka Act No.01 of 2022), is hereby quashed and set aside.

¶37

(iii) The Karnataka Municipal Corporations and Certain Other Law (Amendment) Act, 2023, (Karnataka Act No.37 of 2024), is hereby quashed and set aside.

¶38

(iv) It is hereby declared that the provisions contained in Section 18-A of the Karnataka Town and

¶39

4 -

¶40

NC: 2025:KHC:20505 WP No. 12942 of 2024

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

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.

¶43

(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.

¶44

(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.

¶45

(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.

¶46

(viii) It is hereby declared that Clause 3.8 of the Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Building Bye- laws, 2003,

¶47

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:20505 WP No. 12942 of 2024

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

providing for ‘Ground Rent’, is illegal and are accordingly quashed and set aside.

¶50

(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 the levy and collect the fee generally acceptable to the citizens of Bengaluru. This would also augment the present situation."

¶51

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).

¶52

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

¶53

6 -

¶54

NC: 2025:KHC:20505 WP No. 12942 of 2024

¶55

HC-KAR

¶56

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 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.

¶57

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.

¶58

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

¶59

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:20505 WP No. 12942 of 2024

¶60

HC-KAR

¶61

independently, as it is squarely covered by the binding

¶62

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 captioned writ petition, the

¶63

writ petition is liable to be allowed strictly aligning to the operative portion of the said writ petition.

¶64

In view of the above, this Court proceeds to pass the following;

¶65

ORDER

¶66

(i) The writ petition is allowed.

¶67

(ii) The impugned demand notices dated 15.03.2024 issued by respondent No.3 as per Annexures-A and B are hereby set-aside.

¶68

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

¶69

(iv) Respondent-BBMP is hereby directed to forthwith process the petitioner's application seeking building license and

¶70

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:20505 WP No. 12942 of 2024

¶71

HC-KAR

¶72

sanction of the building plan strictly in accordance with law.

¶73

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

¶74

(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.

¶75

Pending applications, if any, are also disposed off.

¶76

SD/(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE

¶77

NBM

¶78

List No.: 2 Sl No.: 15

Sri Sathyanarayan v. the Bruhath Bangalore Mahanagara Palike

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Sathyanarayan v. the Bruhath Bangalore Mahanagara Palike

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

K Harikrishna Vs Smt Kanakamma

Sri Ramachandregowda @ Ramachandra N Vs Sri Raju

The Chief Secretary Vs M/S Sri Byrava Civil Engineering Works

Smt v v Jyothi Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Renuka R Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr Mohammed Ghaise Vs State of Karnataka