Arumugam Mythili Vs the State of Karnataka

¶1

NC: 2025:KHC:25978 WP No. 19512 of 2025

¶2

1 -

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF JULY, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 19512 OF 2025 (LB-BMP)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

ARUMUGAM MYTHILI, W/O ARUMUGAM V E, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/A APARTMENT BRIGADE EXOTICA, PROPERTY NO.35, BANDAPURA VILLAGE, BIDARAHALLI HOBLI, FLAT NO.B-3406, 34TH FLOOR, BANDAPURA, BANGALORE - 560 049.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. ROHAN S, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

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

¶13

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

¶14

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

¶15

2 -

¶16

NC: 2025:KHC:25978 WP No. 19512 of 2025

¶17

HC-KAR

¶18

BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE N.R. SQUARE, BANGALORE - 560 002, REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER.

¶19

THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF TOWN PLANNING, MAHADEVPURA ZONE, WARD NO.82, BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, BENGALURU - 560 071

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI. H.K. KENCHE GOWDA, AGA FOR R1 AND R2; SRI. PAWAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R3 AND R4)

¶22

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-QUASHING THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 20.06.2025, BEARING LP NO. BBMP/AD.COM./BMH/0093/25-26, ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.4 (ANNEXURE-C) 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 OF SITE, 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, LABOUR CESS AND ETC., AS ILLEGAL, WITHOUT JURISDICTION AND ARBITRARY AND ETC.,

¶23

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶24

3 -

¶25

NC: 2025:KHC:25978 WP No. 19512 of 2025

¶26

HC-KAR

¶27

ORAL ORDER

¶28

The captioned petition is filed seeking the following reliefs;

¶29

i. issue a writ or order by way of certiorari quashing the demand notice dated:-20.06.2025, bearing LP No. BBMP/Ad.Com./BMH/0093/25-26, Issued by the Respondent No.4 (ANNEXURE-C) 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 of site, 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, Labour cess and etc., as Illegal, without jurisdiction and arbitrary.

¶30

ii. Issue a writ or order or direction by way of mandamus directing the Respondent No.3 and 4 BBMP to issue the sanction plan for construction of the industry Building in the Schedule Property without insisting the Ground rent, GST on Ground rent, License fee, scrutiny fee, Betterment charges for building, Betterment charges of site, Lake Rejuvenation fee, Cess for water supply scheme, Surcharge for formation outer ring road, Cess for improvement of slum and Surcharge for Mass Rapid Transport System, Labour cess and

¶31

iii. 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.

¶32

It is brought to the notice of this Court that

¶33

across the Bar, the issue is dealt by the Co-ordinate Bench

¶34

in the reported judgment in W.P.No.23086/2022 and connected matters . The Co-ordinate Bench, while

¶35

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:25978 WP No. 19512 of 2025

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

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;

¶38

"ORDER

¶39

(i) The writ petitions are partly allowed.

¶40

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

¶41

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

¶42

(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 ‘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

5 -

¶44

NC: 2025:KHC:25978 WP No. 19512 of 2025

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

(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.

¶47

(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.

¶48

(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.

¶49

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

¶51

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:25978 WP No. 19512 of 2025

¶52

HC-KAR

¶53

citizens of Bengaluru. This would also augment the present situation."

¶54

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

¶55

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).

¶56

The Court further declared that the provisions

¶57

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

¶58

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:25978 WP No. 19512 of 2025

¶59

HC-KAR

¶60

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.

¶61

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.

¶62

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

¶63

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:25978 WP No. 19512 of 2025

¶64

HC-KAR

¶65

writ petition is liable to be allowed strictly aligning to the

¶66

operative portion of the said writ petition.

¶67

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

¶68

ORDER

¶69

(i) The writ petition is allowed.

¶70

(ii) The impugned demand notice dated 20.06.2025 issued by respondent No.4 as per Annexure-C is hereby set-aside.

¶71

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

¶72

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

¶74

9 -

¶75

NC: 2025:KHC:25978 WP No. 19512 of 2025

¶76

HC-KAR

¶77

BBMP is contemplating to file an appeal against the reported judgment.

¶78

(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.

¶79

Pending applications, if any, are also disposed off.

¶80

Sd/(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE

¶81

HDK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 31 CT: BHK

Arumugam Mythili v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arumugam Mythili 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

Ms Anne Dominic Vs Mr Samuel James Dominic

Mr. Sarwar Hussain Mir Vs M/S Deone Marketing Service

Sri Hanumanthaiah Vs Sri Thimmarayappa

Sri Devaraju G Vs the State of Karnataka

Malatesh Murthy Vs the Secretary

Sri. R. Vinodh Babu Vs Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike