Sri. R. Sridhar Vs the Commissioner

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED DEMAND NOTICE DATED 5-7-2024 IN LP NO.BBMP/AD.COM/EST/0277/24-25 VIDE ANNEXURE-A ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.2 AND DIRECTING TO ISSUE THE PLAN SANCTION BY ALLOWING THE PRESENT WRIT PETITION.

¶24

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

¶25

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶26

ORAL ORDER

¶27

The captioned petition is filed seeking the following

¶28

reliefs:

¶29

a) Issue writ or order or direction in the nature Certiorari quashing the impugned DEMAND NOTICE DATED 05.07.2024 in LP No. BBMP/Ad.com/EST/0277/24-25 vide Annexure -A issued by Respondent no.2 and directing to issue the plan sanction by allowing he present Writ Petition.

¶30

b) To allow the writ petition by declaring the provisions of KMC and KTCP Act as arbitrary and illegal by issuing writ of Certiorari with exemplary cost.

¶31

c) To pass such other order or to issue such direction as deemed fit in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity.

¶32

d) To award exemplary costs against the Respondents in the interest of the justice and equity.

¶33

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:23720 WP No. 19677 of 2024

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

It is brought to the notice of this Court that

¶36

across the Bar, the issue is dealt by the Co-ordinate Bench in the reported judgment in W.P.No.23086/2022 and

¶37

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;

¶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

¶43

4 -

¶44

NC: 2025:KHC:23720 WP No. 19677 of 2024

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

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.

¶47

(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.

¶48

(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.

¶49

(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.

¶50

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

¶51

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:23720 WP No. 19677 of 2024

¶52

HC-KAR

¶53

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

¶54

(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."

¶55

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).

¶56

The Court further declared that the provisions under Section 18-A of the Karnataka Town and Country

¶57

6 -

¶58

NC: 2025:KHC:23720 WP No. 19677 of 2024

¶59

HC-KAR

¶60

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.

¶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

¶63

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:23720 WP No. 19677 of 2024

¶64

HC-KAR

¶65

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.

¶66

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

¶67

ORDER

¶68

(i) The writ petition is allowed.

¶69

(ii) The impugned demand notice dated 05.07.2024 issued by respondent No.2 as per Annexure-A is hereby set-aside.

¶70

(iii) Respondent- BBMP hereby directed to issue fresh sanction plan.

¶71

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

¶72

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:23720 WP No. 19677 of 2024

¶73

HC-KAR

¶74

sanction of the building plan, strictly in accordance with law.

¶75

(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.

¶76

(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.

¶77

Pending applications, if any, are also disposed off.

¶78

Sd/(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE

¶79

HDK

¶80

List No.: 2 Sl No.: 36

Sri. R. Sridhar v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. R. Sridhar v. the Commissioner

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

M a Nazeer Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Thippamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri v S Chandrashekar Vs State of Karnataka

Sri N Ramachandraih Vs State of Karnataka

Mr G S Prasanna Kumar Vs State of Karnataka

Mrs Roseline Kumar Vs the State of Karnataka