B S Anil Kumar Vs the State of Karnataka

B S ANIL KUMAR AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, S/O. B. L. SHANKARAPPA, R/AT SAPTHAGIRI, WEST OF CHORD ROAD, NEAR MODI HOSPITAL ROAD, MAHALAKSHMI PURA, BENGALURU NORTH, BENGALURU-560 086.

¶10

&PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. C M NAGABUSHANA, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

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

¶14

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT, M.S. BUILDING, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560 001. REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.

¶15

BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGAR PALIKE CORPORATION BUILDINGS, N.R. SQUARE, BANGALORE-560 002. REP. BY ITS CHIEF COMMISSIONER.

¶16

2 -

¶17

NC: 2025:KHC:22990 WP No. 18748 of 2024

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR TOWN PLANNING (EAST), BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGAR PALIKE, UTILITY BUILDING, MAYOHALL, 22^ND FLOOR, M.G. ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶20

&RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI. BOPANNA.B, AGA FOR R1; SRI. K.B.MONISH KUMAR, ADV. FOR R2 & R3)

¶22

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO GRANT AN ORDER DECLARING THAT THE ENTIRE KARNATAKA MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS AND CERTAIN OTHER LAW (AMENDMENT) ACT, 2021 (KARNATAKA ACT NO. 01 OF 2022) NOTIFIED ON 13/01/2022 (ANNEXURE-K) AS BEING ULTRA VIRES THE CONSTITUTION IN SO FAR, THE PETITIONER IS CONCERNED IN SO FAR, THE PETITIONER IS CONCERNED AND ETC.

¶23

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

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶25

3 -

¶26

NC: 2025:KHC:22990 WP No. 18748 of 2024

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

ORAL ORDER

¶29

Petitioner, in the captioned petition has sought for following reliefs :

¶30

(i) Grant an order declaring that the entire Karnataka Municipal Corporations and Certain Other Law (Amendment) Act, 2021 (Karnataka Act No. 01 of 2022) notified on 13/01/2022 (ANNEXURE-K) as being ultra vires the Constitution in so far, the Petitioner is concerned in so far, the Petitioner is concerned.

¶31

(ii) To declare that Karnataka Municipal Corporations and Certain Other Law (Amendment) Act, 2021 (Karnataka Act No. 01 of 2022) notified on 13/01/2022 (ANNEXURE-K) is in violation/contrary to the decision reported in ILR 2021 KAR 3968(SunderamShettys Case)

¶32

(iii) Grant an order, direction or writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the Office Order No. HaNiNaYo/PR/461/2021-22 dated 09/03/2022 issued by Respondent No.2 as contained in (ANNEXURE-L) in so far, the Petitioner is concerned.

¶33

(iv) 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-F2) insofar as Section 18-

¶34

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:22990 WP No. 18748 of 2024

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

A(1) and (iv) of the Karnataka Act No. 23 of 2004 is concerned;

¶37

(v) Grant an order, direction or writ in the nature of Certiorari quashing the Notification issued by the 1st Respondent bearing No. UDD 3 TTP 2015 dated 25/02/2020 as contained in (ANNEXURE-F1). Insofar as the inserted Rule 37-A and 37-C is concerned;

¶38

(vi) issue a writ or order by way of certiorari quashing the circular dated 14/08/2020, bearing No.He. Ni.Ka.Pa.ka R/320/2020-21 issued by the Respondent No 2 (Annexure-F3) in so far the Petitioner is concerned.

¶39

(vii) Grant an order, direction or writ in the nature of Certiorari quashing the Notification issued by the 1 Respondent bearing No. UDD 23 TTP 2020 (E) dated 21/06/2021 as contained in (ANNEXURE-G) insofar as the inserted Rule 37-A and 37-C is concerned,

¶40

(viii) issue a writ or order by way of certiorari quashing the circular dated 24/06/2021, bearing No. He. Ni.Na. Yo/PR/320/2020-21 issued by the Respondent No.2 (Annexure-H) in so far the Petitioner is concerned.

¶41

(ix) issue a writ or order by way of certiorari quashing the demand notice dated 14-09-2022, bearing NO. BBMP/AD.Com/EST/0432/21-22 at Annexure C issued by the Respondent No. 3 for demanding in so far it is concerned to Ground rent, GST on Ground rent, License fee, scrutiny fee, Betterment charges for building, Betterment charges for site, security deposit

¶42

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:22990 WP No. 18748 of 2024

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

Lake Rejuvenation fee, Cess for water supply scheme, Surcharge for formation outer ring road, Cess for improvement of slum, Surcharge for Mass Rapid Transport System, Labourcess and etc., as illegal, without jurisdiction and arbitrary.

¶45

(x) Issue Writ of mandamus or order of similar nature directing the 2^nd respondent to refund the excess amount collected by the 2^nd respondent in pursuance of demand notice dated 14-09-2022. bearing NO. BBMP/AD.Com/EST/0432/21-22 at Annexure C issued by the Respondent No. 3

¶46

(xi) 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.

¶47

It is brought to the notice of this Court that

¶48

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).

¶49

6 -

¶50

NC: 2025:KHC:22990 WP No. 18748 of 2024

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

Therefore, this Court deems it fit to cull out the operative portion of the order, which reads as under;

¶53

"ORDER

¶54

(i) The writ petitions are partly allowed.

¶55

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

¶56

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

¶57

(iv) It is hereby declared that the provisions contained in Section 18-A of the Karnataka Town and 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 8Development Plan9 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.

¶58

(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 8Development Plan9 in terms of the 8Note9 found below TABLE I of Rule 37-A of the Karnataka Planning Authority Rules, 1965.

¶59

7 -

¶60

NC: 2025:KHC:22990 WP No. 18748 of 2024

¶61

HC-KAR

¶62

(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 8market value9 or 8guidance value9 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.

¶63

(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.

¶64

(viii) It is hereby declared that Clause 3.8 of the Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Building Bye- laws, 2003, providing for 8Ground Rent9, is illegal and are accordingly quashed and set aside.

¶65

(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 8One Time Settlement9 and settle the levy and collect the fee generally acceptable to the citizens of Bengaluru. This would also augment the present situation."

¶66

In the present writ petition, the core issue raised stands substantially covered and decided by the

¶67

8 -

¶68

NC: 2025:KHC:22990 WP No. 18748 of 2024

¶69

HC-KAR

¶70

authoritative pronouncement of the coordinate bench, wherein the writ petitions were partly allowed and several consequential reliefs were granted. The Hon9ble 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).

¶71

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 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.

¶72

9 -

¶73

NC: 2025:KHC:22990 WP No. 18748 of 2024

¶74

HC-KAR

¶75

The Court declared illegal the linkage of such

¶76

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.

¶77

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 independently, as it is squarely covered by the binding 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 writ petition is liable to be allowed strictly aligning to the operative portion of the said writ petition.

¶78

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

¶79

10 -

¶80

NC: 2025:KHC:22990 WP No. 18748 of 2024

¶81

HC-KAR

¶82

ORDER

¶83

(i) The writ petition is allowed.

¶84

(ii) The impugned demand notice dated 14.09.2022 issued by respondent No.3 as per Annexure-C is hereby set-aside.

¶85

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

¶86

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

¶87

(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.

¶88

(vi) If the building license and sanction plan are issued, the same shall be subjected to the outcome of any

¶89

11 -

¶90

NC: 2025:KHC:22990 WP No. 18748 of 2024

¶91

HC-KAR

¶92

appeal that may be filed by the BBMP against the judgment.

¶93

(vii) Petitioner shall make a representation to respondent-BBMP seeking refund of excess fee paid. Respondent- BBMP shall consider this representation and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law and strictly aligning to the guidelines provided in the reported judgment rendered by the Co-ordinate Bench. Respondent- BBMP shall accomplish this exercise within a period of 8 weeks from receipt of representation.

¶94

Pending applications, if any, are also disposed off.

¶95

Sd/(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE

¶96

SMJ

¶97

List No.: 2 Sl No.: 8

B S Anil Kumar v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B S Anil Kumar 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 Eapen Chandy Vs the State of Karnataka

Vishwanatha G M Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Salman Khalid Vs State of Karnataka

Sri T Prabhakar Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr. Y. R. Anil Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt T Manjula Vs State of Karnataka