Sri Ashwin K Raj @ Ashwin Kantha Raj Vs the State of Karnataka

¶1

1 -

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:20948 WP No. 2636 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO.2636 OF 2025 (LB-BMP)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI ASHWIN K RAJ @ ASHWIN KANTHA RAJ S/O LATE M V KANTHARAJ SETTY AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS R/AT NO.404 RAJ NILAYA 1ST CROSS 8TH MAIN 2ND BLOCK BSK 3RD STAGE 3RD PHASE BANGALORE-560085 AND ALSO SITE NO.49(B) TVS CROSS NTTF, PEENYA INDUSTIRAL AREA 2ND PHASE WARD NO.039 BANGALORE-560057

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

Digitally signed by AL BHAGYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

(BY SRI. YASHAVANTHSWAMY A M., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

¶14

THE URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 4TH FLOOR, VIKAS SOUDHA DR AMBEDKAR VEDHI, BANGALORE-560001 REP BY ITS SECRETARY

¶15

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS AND LEGISLATION

¶16

2 -

¶17

NC: 2025:KHC:20948 WP No. 2636 of 2025

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

VIKASA SOUDHA, DR B R AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE 560001 REP BY TIS SECRETARY

¶20

BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE N R SQUARE, BANGALORE 560002 REP BY ITS COMMISISONER

¶21

THE ASSISTANT DRIECTOR TOWN PLANNING DASARAHALLI NH-4 NEXT TO POST OFFICE BANGALORE WARD 039 BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE DASARAHALLI, BANGALORE, BENGALURU 560057.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI.BOPANNA B., AGA FOR R1 & R2 SRI. K.B.MONESH KUMAR., ADVOCATE FOR R3 & R4)

¶24

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE KARNATAKA MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS AND CERTAIN OTHER LAW (AMENDMENT) ACT 2021 ACT NO. 1/2022 DATED 13/01/2022 ENACTED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT PUBLISHED THROUGH NOTIFICATION BEARING NO. DPAL 50 SHASANA 2021 GAZETTE ON 13/01/2022 AT ANNEXURE-G DECLARING IT TO BE ULTRA VIRES AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL SO FAR AS PETITIONER IS CONCERNED AND ETC.

¶25

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

¶26

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:20948 WP No. 2636 of 2025

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶29

ORAL ORDER

¶30

The captioned petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:

¶31

i) issue a writ of certiorari or similar writ or order or direction to quash the Karnataka Municipal Corporations and Certain Other Law (Amendment) Act 2021 Act No. 1/2022 dated 13/01/2022 enacted by the second respondent published through notification bearing No.DPAL 50 SHASANA 2021 gazette on 13/01/2022 at ANNEXURE-G declaring it to be ultra vires and unconstitutional so far as petitioner is concerned.

¶32

ii) Issue a writ of certiorari or similar writ or order or direction to quash the office order bearing No. ADTP/PR/461/2021-22 Dated 09/03/2022 issued by the third respondent Annexure-H . So for as petitioner is concerned.

¶33

iii) Issue a writ of certiorari to quash the demand note L.P. No. BBMP/Ad.Com/DSH/0306/23-24 and project No.PRJ/14896/23-24 dated 24/01/2025, at Annexure-D issued by the respondent No.4 in so far as demand towards. Fee payable to BBMP. So for as petitioner is concerned.

¶34

4 -

¶35

NC: 2025:KHC:20948 WP No. 2636 of 2025

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

Sl. No.	Details of Fees	Amount (Rs).
01.	Scrutiny Fee	32,718.00
02.	Licence Fee	3,97,290.00
03.	Fee U/s 18 (1) of KTCP Act (Betterment Fee) for building	1,55,800.00
04.	Fee u/s 18(1) of KTCP Act 1961 (Betterment Levy) for site	7,90,200.00
05.	Security Deposit	00.00
06.	Lake Rejuvenation fee	1,09,750.00
07.	1% of Labour cess amount to BBMP	7,089.00
08.	Ground Rent (including 9 % CGST and 9% SGST	6,06,685.00
09.	Road cutting fee	0.00
10.	Compound wall Charges	3,430.00
11.	Water Supply Cess	94,600.00
12.	Ring Road Surcharge	94,600.00
13.	Cess for Improvement Of Slums	47,300.00
14.	MRTS surcharge	4,73,000.00
15.	5% of administrative charges to BBMP on Cess and surcharge	35,475.00
16.	Penalty	00.00
17.	Miscellaneous Charges	8,563.00
	Total Rs.	28,56,500.00
	Previously paid amount	980.00
	Total amount to be paid	28,55,520.00/-

¶38

5 -

¶39

NC: 2025:KHC:20948 WP No. 2636 of 2025

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

to be paid to BBMP are concerned. And Labour Cess total amount Rs. 7,02,000.00/-

¶42

iv) Issue a writ of certiorari or similar writ, order or direction to quash the Circular bearing No. He.Ni.Ka.Pa.Ko/320/2020-21 dated 14/08/2020 at ANNEXURE-J issued by the 3^rd respondent so for as petitioner is concerned.

¶43

v) Issue a writ of certiorari or similar writ or order or direction to quash provisions of section 18-A of Karnataka Town And Country Planning Act, 1961 brought into effect by Karnataka Act No. 23 of 2004 by the 1^st respondent at ANNEXURE-K in so far as 18-A(i) and (iv) of Karnataka Act No. 23 of 2004 is concerned. so far as petitioner is concerned.

¶44

vi) Grant an order, direction or writ in the nature of Certiorari quashing the notification issued by the 1^st respondent bearing No.UDD 3 TTP 2015 dated 25/02/2020 as contained in ANNEXURE-L in so far as the amended Rule 37-A and Rule 37-C are concerned, so for as petitioner is concerned.

¶45

vii) Issue any other appropriate writ or order or direction to the respondents demand fit in the circumstances of the case on the interest of justice and equity.

¶46

6 -

¶47

NC: 2025:KHC:20948 WP No. 2636 of 2025

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

viii) Pass any such other orders as this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity.

¶50

It is brought to the notice of this Court that 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;

¶51

"ORDER

¶52

(i) The writ petitions are partly allowed.

¶53

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

¶54

7 -

¶55

NC: 2025:KHC:20948 WP No. 2636 of 2025

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

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

¶58

(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.

¶59

(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.

¶60

(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.

¶61

(vii) Consequently, all the impugned Circulars which seek to give effect to the Rules 37-A and 37-C of

¶62

8 -

¶63

NC: 2025:KHC:20948 WP No. 2636 of 2025

¶64

HC-KAR

¶65

the Karnataka Planning Authority Rules, 1965, are hereby quashed and set aside.

¶66

(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.

¶67

(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."

¶68

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).

¶69

9 -

¶70

NC: 2025:KHC:20948 WP No. 2636 of 2025

¶71

HC-KAR

¶72

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.

¶73

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.

¶74

10 - NC: 2025:KHC:20948 WP No. 2636 of 2025

¶75

HC-KAR

¶76

In view of these comprehensive declarations and

¶77

findings, it is submitted that the controversy raised in the

¶78

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.

¶79

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

¶80

ORDER

¶81

(i) The writ petition is allowed.

¶82

(ii) The impugned demand notice dated 24.01.2025 issued by respondent No.4 as per Annexure-D is hereby set-aside.

¶83

(iii) Respondent Nos.3 and 4 are hereby directed to issue fresh sanction plan as the case may be.

¶84

11 -

¶85

NC: 2025:KHC:20948 WP No. 2636 of 2025

¶86

HC-KAR

¶87

(iv) Respondent Nos.3 and 4 are hereby directed to forthwith process the petitioner's application seeking building license and sanction of the building plan, strictly in accordance with law.

¶88

(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.

¶89

(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.

¶90

Pending applications, if any, are also disposed off.

¶91

SD/-

¶92

(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE

¶93

KLY

Sri Ashwin K Raj @ Ashwin Kantha Raj v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Ashwin K Raj @ Ashwin Kantha Raj 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. M.Venkatarama Reddy Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S. Emerald Agencies Vs the Commissioner

M/S Midas Developers Vs State of Karnataka

M/S Abhee Ventures Pvt. Ltd., Vs State of Karnataka

Smt. Gowramma Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. R. Shivaram Vs State of Karnataka