Mrs Roseline Kumar Vs the State of Karnataka

¶1

1 -

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:22734 WP No. 24851 of 2024

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO.24851 OF 2024 (LB-BMP)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

MRS. ROSELINE KUMAR W/O. MR. KUMAR A.A. STAN AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS

¶9

MISS GINA SOUNDARYA KUMAR STAN D/O. MR. KUMAR A.A. STAN AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS

¶10

BOTH ARE RESIDING AT NO.240/1, 5TH MAIN 5TH CROSS, NEAR VIVEKNAGAR BUS STOP VIVEK NAGAR BENGALURU-560 047.

¶11

…PETITIONERS

¶12

Digitally signed by CHAITHRA P

¶13

Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

(BY SRI JNANESH KUMAR K., ADVOCATE)

¶15

AND:

¶16

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT AMBEDKAR VEEDHI VIKASA SOUDHA BENGALURU-560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.

¶17

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA LABOUR DEPARTMENT AMBEDKAR VEEDHI VIKASA SOUDHA BENGALURU-560 001

¶18

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:22734 WP No. 24851 of 2024

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

REPRESENTED BY ITS UNDER SECRETARY ' TO GOVERNMENT.

¶21

BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE HUDSON CIRCLE N.R. SQUARE BENGALURU-560 002 REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER.

¶22

THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF TOWN PLANNING BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE(SOUTH) JAYANAGAR 2ND BLOCK BENGALURU-560 011.

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI BOPANNA B., AGA FOR R-1 AND R-2; SRI K.B. MONESH KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R-3 AND R-4)

¶25

¶26

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE AN ORDER, DIRECTION OR WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 BEARING NO.UDD 3 TTP 2015 DATED 25-2-2020 (ANNEXURE-D) INSOFAR AS THE INSERTED RULES 37-A AND 37-C ARE CONCERNED AND ETC.

¶27

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

¶28

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶29

3 -

¶30

NC: 2025:KHC:22734 WP No. 24851 of 2024

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

ORAL ORDER

¶33

The captioned petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:

¶34

a) Issue an order, direction or writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the Notification issued by the Respondent No.2 bearing No. UDD 3 TTP 2015 dated 25/02/2020 (Annexure-D) insofar as the inserted Rules 37-A and 37-C are concerned:

¶35

b) Grant an order, direction or writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the Government order bearing No. LD/300/LET/2006, issued by the Respondent No.2 dated 18/01/2007 (Annexure-E) and the corrigendum order bearing No. LD/300/LET/2006, issued by the Respondent No.2, dated 28/02/2007 (Annexure-F) mandating upfront collection of labour welfare cess in so far the Petitioner.

¶36

c) Issue a writ, order or direction in nature of a certiorari as regards the levy sought to be imposed by the Impugned Demand Notice at Annexure-A bearing LP No.BBMP/Ad.Com./SUT/0829/24-25 dated 05/09/2024 issued by Respondent No.4 in so far as Labour Cess for a sum of Rs.2,02,000/-.

¶37

d) Issue a writ, order or direction in nature of a Certiorari as regards the levy sought to be imposed by the Impugned Demand Notice at Annexure-A bearing LP No.BBMP/Ad.Com./SUT/0829/24-25 dated 05/09/2024 issued by Respondent No.4 in so far levy of ground rent for a sum of Rs.8,73,670/-.

¶38

4 -

¶39

NC: 2025:KHC:22734 WP No. 24851 of 2024

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

e) Issue a writ, order or direction in nature of a Certiorari as regards the levy sought to be imposed by the Impugned Demand Notice at Annexure-A bearing LP No.BBMP/Ad.Com./SUT/0829/24-25 dated 05/09/2024 issued by Respondent No.4 in so far as Betterment fee of a sum of Rs.1,10,600/-, for building, Scrutiny Fee for a sum of Rs.47,155/- and License fee a sum of Rs.9,42,325/-:

¶42

f) Declare that the Respondent Nos.3 and 4 (BBMP) have no authority to collect the taxes under the guise of collection of license fee cess and other fees under various heads based on arbitrary rates and values:

¶43

g) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 to collect fees as specified in the Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Building Bye Laws, 2003 only:

¶44

h) And grant such other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit to grant, based on the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice equity

¶45

The Co-ordinate Benches of this Court, in W.P.No.23086/2022 and connected matters(herein 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.

¶46

5 -

¶47

NC: 2025:KHC:22734 WP No. 24851 of 2024

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

In Sunderam Shetty and connected cases, the Co-

¶50

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. and

¶51

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 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.

¶52

The issues raised in the present writ petition are squarely covered by the above binding decisions, wherein

¶53

6 -

¶54

NC: 2025:KHC:22734 WP No. 24851 of 2024

¶55

HC-KAR

¶56

the relevant bye-laws and government circulars have been

¶57

set aside.

¶58

In light of the authoritative pronouncements, the 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.

¶59

Accordingly, this Court proceeds to pass the following:

¶60

ORDER

¶61

(i) The writ petition is allowed.

¶62

(ii) The impugned demand notice dated 05.09.2024 issued by respondent No.4 as per Annexure-A is hereby set-aside.

¶63

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

¶64

(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.

¶65

7 -

¶66

NC: 2025:KHC:22734 WP No. 24851 of 2024

¶67

HC-KAR

¶68

(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.

¶69

(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.

¶70

Pending applications, if any, are also disposed off.

¶71

Sd/(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE

¶72

HDK List No.: 2 Sl No.: 19

Mrs Roseline Kumar v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs Roseline 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

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

Sri. R. Sridhar Vs the Commissioner