National Educational Trust Vs State of Karnataka

¶1

NC: 2025:KHC:45188 WP No. 55253 of 2018

¶2

1 -

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 55253 OF 2018 (LB-BMP)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

NATIONAL EDUCATIONAL TRUST REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, & PRINCIPAL DR K P GOPALA KRISHNA, NATIONAL GAMES VILLAGE, HOUSING COMPLEX, KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE - 560047

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. MOHAN KUMAR M, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY, URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT VIDHANA SOUDHA BANGALORE - 560001

¶14

THE COMMISSIONER OF BBMP, N R SQUARE BANGALORE- 560002

¶15

THE JOINT DIRECTOR TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (SOUTH) BBMP N R SQUARE, BANGALORE - 560002

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI.B.BOPANNA, AGA FOR R1;

¶18

SRI.B.K.SANJEEV, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3)

¶19

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:45188 WP No. 55253 of 2018

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED DEMAND NOTICE DATED 31.05.2018 VIDE ANNEXURE-A ISSUED BY R-1 BY ALLOWING THE PRESENT WRIT PETITION AND TO DIRECT R- 2 AND 3 TO GRANT EXEMPTION FROM PAYING THE GROUND FLOOR CHARGES ANDDIRECT THE R-2 TO COLLECT THE FEES AND GIVE EXEMPTION AS SPECIFIED IN BBMP BYE-LAWS 2003 AND ETC,.

¶22

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

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

The petitioner has challenged a notice bearing No.BBMP/ Addl.Dir/ JD South/ 0104/16-17 dated 31.05.2018 issued by respondent No.1 demanding a sum of Rs.58,16,000/- for sanction of a building plan. He has also sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondent No.2 to collect the fees authorized in law and give exemption as specified in the BBMP bye-laws, 2003 and to declare the demand notice as illegal and bad in law. He has also sought for a declaration that respondent Nos.2 and 3 are not entitled to collect fees under various heads without the previous sanction of the State Government.

¶26

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:45188 WP No. 55253 of 2018

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

The petitioner being the owner of a property, sought for a sanction of a development plan. The respondent No.2 issued a notice calling upon the petitioner to pay the

¶29

following:

¶30

SL. No.	DESCRIPTION	AMOUNT IN Rs.
	AMOUNT TO BE REMITTED TO THE B	BMP
1	Ground Rent with GST @ 18%	19,08,793/- 3,43,582/-
2	Development Fee for Building	10,908/-
3	Security Deposit	5,45,400/-
4	Sanctioned Plan copies fee	51,600/-
5	License Fee	24,29,373/-
6	Labour Welfare Fund to be remitted to the Palike at the rate of 1%	9,435/-
7	Verification Fee	3,29,313/-
8	Rejuvenation of Tanks fee	1,87,175/-
9	Total	58,15,579/-
	Round off	58,16,000/-

¶31

The petitioner is therefore before this Court

¶32

challenging the demand on the ground that respondent No.2 is not authorized in law to demand and collect the ground rent, security deposit, the labour cess verification fee and lake development fees.

¶33

The learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the above contentions relied on Sections 295 and 296 of the erstwhile Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act,

¶34

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:45188 WP No. 55253 of 2018

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

1976 (henceforth referred to as ‘the Act, 1976’ for short) and bye-laws Nos.3.7, 3.8, 3.10 and 3.13 of the building bye-laws to contend that the demand made by respondent No.2 is without the authority of law. He contends that the very same questions arose for consideration before a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.23086/2022. He therefore contends that this petition may also to be disposed off on similar lines.

¶37

Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that the judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court is challenged in W.A.No.1050/2025 and therefore, the petitioner may be put on terms.

¶38

In view of the aforesaid submission and as the contentions raised in this writ petition are already decided by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in a batch of petitions, this petition also deserves to be disposed off on similar lines, subject however to the outcome of the writ appeal stated above. In view of above, this petition is disposed off on similar lines as in W.P.No.23086/2022 and connected petitions. However, this is subject to the outcome of W.A.No.1050/2025.

¶39