Sri T Prabhakar Vs the State of Karnataka

Digitally signed by 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA SHARADAVANI THE URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, B VIKASA SOUDHA, Location: High Court of DR. B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, Karnataka BENGALURU -560001. REP. BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS AND LEGISLATION, VIKASA SOUDHA, DR. B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560001. REP. BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶14

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:23046 WP No. 4637 of 2025

¶15

HC-KAR

¶16

BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGAR PALIKE N.R.SQUARE, BANGALORE-560002 REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER.

¶17

THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR TOWN PLANNING (SOUTH) BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE BBMP COMPLEX, 9^TH CROSS, 9^TH MAIN, 2^ND BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU-560002.

¶18

&RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SMT. V.SPOORTHI, HCGP FOR R-1 TO R-2 SRI. PAWAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R-3 TO R-4)

¶20

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE DEMAND NOTICES DATED 02.01.2025, ISSUED BY THE 4^TH RESPONDENT, IN LP.NO.BBMP/AD.COM/EST/0300/24-25 IN CHALLAN NO.BBMP/EODB/CH/41729/24-25 AND CHALLAN NO. BBMP/EODB/CH/41729/24-25 VIZ ANNX-A, A1 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, 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 OR 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 AND ETC.

¶21

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

¶22

3 -

¶23

NC: 2025:KHC:23046 WP No. 4637 of 2025

¶24

HC-KAR

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

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

¶27

(i) Issue a writ or order by way of certiorari quashing the demand notices dated: 02.01.2025, issued by the 4^th Respondent, in LP.No.BBMP/Ad.Com./EST/0300/24-25, in Challan no.BBMP/EoDB/CH/41729/24-25, and Challan ?>.667$/EoDB/CH/41729/2425, viz Annexure-A, A1 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, 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 or 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.

¶28

4 -

¶29

NC: 2025:KHC:23046 WP No. 4637 of 2025

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

It is brought to the notice of this Court that

¶32

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;

¶33

"ORDER

¶34

(i) The writ petitions are partly allowed.

¶35

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

¶36

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

¶37

(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

¶38

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:23046 WP No. 4637 of 2025

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

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.

¶41

(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.

¶42

(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.

¶43

(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.

¶44

(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.

¶45

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:23046 WP No. 4637 of 2025

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

(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."

¶48

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 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).

¶49

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

¶50

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:23046 WP No. 4637 of 2025

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

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.

¶53

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.

¶54

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

¶55

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:23046 WP No. 4637 of 2025

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

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.

¶58

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

¶59

ORDER

¶60

(i) The writ petition is allowed.

¶61

(ii) The impugned demand notice dated 02.01.2025 issued by respondent No.4 as per Annexure-A and A1 is hereby set-aside.

¶62

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

¶63

(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.

¶64

9 -

¶65

NC: 2025:KHC:23046 WP No. 4637 of 2025

¶66

HC-KAR

¶67

(v) It is made clear that the issuance of

¶68

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

SMJ

¶73

List No.: 2 Sl No.: 48

Sri T Prabhakar v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri T Prabhakar 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

B S Anil Kumar Vs the State of Karnataka

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

Smt T Manjula Vs State of Karnataka