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

MRS. Y.KALPANA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, W/O MR. Y.V.PRASAD, R/A NO.55, 1^st STAGE, 11^TH CROSS, INDIRANAGAR BANGALORE-560038. REP. BY THEIR GPA HOLDER M/S EMBASSY PROPERTY DEVELOPMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED, A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT EMBASSY POINT, 1^st FLOOR, NO.150, INFANTRY ROAD, BANGALORE-560001.

¶11

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:22989 WP No. 6500 of 2021

¶12

HC-KAR

¶13

REP. BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY, MR. A.B.MANDANNA

¶14

&PETITIONERS

¶15

(BY SRI. KEMPEGOWDA, ADVOCATE)

¶16

AND:

¶17

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF LAW AND PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS VIDHANA SOUDHA DR. B R AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU-560001.

¶18

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 4^TH FLOOR, VIKAS SOUDHA DR. B R AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU-560001.

¶19

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR VIKASA SOUDHA

¶20

BENGALURU-560001.

¶21

BRUHATH BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE N.R.SQUARE, HUDSON CIRCLE, BENGALURU-560001. REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER.

¶22

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:22989 WP No. 6500 of 2021

¶23

HC-KAR

¶24

THE JOINT DIRECTOR, (BUILDING LICENSE CELL-NORTH) BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE N.R.SQUARE, HUDSON CIRCLE, BENGALURU-560002.

¶25

&RESPONDENTS

¶26

(BY SRI. BOPANNA.B., AGA FOR R1 TO R3; SRI. B.L.SANJEEV, ADV. FOR R4 & R5)

¶27

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DECLARE THE BYE LAW NO.3.9 OF THE BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE BUILDING BYE-LAWS 2003 ANNEXURE-A AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL ILLEGAL AND ULRA VIRES AND ETC.

¶28

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

¶29

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶30

4 -

¶31

NC: 2025:KHC:22989 WP No. 6500 of 2021

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

ORAL ORDER

¶34

Petitioners, in the captioned petition has sought for following reliefs :

¶35

1. Issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ, order or direction, declaring the Bye law No.3.9 of the Bangalore Mahanagara Palike Building Bye-laws 2003 (ANNEXURE-A) as unconstitutional, illegal and ultra vires;

¶36

2. Issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ, order or direction, declaring that the amendment of Rule 37-A, and insertion of Rule 37-C, in the Karnataka Planning Authority Rules, 1962, ("KPA Rules") by way of The Karnataka Planning Authorities (Amendment) Rules, 2019., vide Notification No.UDD3 TTP 2015 dated 25/02/2020 issued by Respondent No.1 (Annexure-B) , relating to levy of fees, cess and surchages for issuance of development plans, is ultra vires of the Sections 18, 18-A of the KTCP Act, and consequently quash/set aside the same; and

¶37

3. Issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, quashing the Demand Notice at Annexure-C dated 07-10-2020 bearing No. BBMP/Addl.Dir/JD-Central/0014/19-20 issued by Respondent No.5 demanding :-

¶38

Rs.1,46,31,330/- towards Ground Rent;

¶39

NC: 2025:KHC:22989 WP No. 6500 of 2021

¶40

5 -

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

Rs.26,33,639/- towards GST on the said ground rent;

¶43

Rs.71,58,577/and Rs.2,11,48,095/towards Betterment Tax;

¶44

Rs.71,58,577/- towards Security Deposit;

¶45

Rs.1,86,21,692/- towards License Fee;

¶46

Rs.9,31,085/- towards Scrutiny fee;

¶47

Rs.1,08,103/- towards the labour cess;

¶48

Rs.1,29,000/- towards Plan Copies fee;

¶49

Rs.20,000/- towards Compound wall fee;

¶50

Rs.7,04,937/- towards 5% of Service Charges on Levy and Surcharge; and

¶51

Rs.28,19,746/- towards Cess for Water supply scheme;

¶52

Rs.28,19,746/- towards Surcharge for formation of Ring Road;

¶53

Rs.14,09,873/- towards cess for Improving Slums;

¶54

Rs.70,49,365/- towards surcharge for establishing Mass Rapid Transport System; and

¶55

Rs.1,07,03,000/towards the Building and other construction workers welfare cess;

¶56

as a pre-requisite condition for issuance of sanction plan for construction of Commercial Building (Office) and MLCP (Multi Level Car Parking) sought for by Petitioners in relation to the proposed

¶57

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:22989 WP No. 6500 of 2021

¶58

HC-KAR

¶59

commercial building project in the Schedule Property; and

¶60

4. Grant such other and further relief as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity.

¶61

It is brought to the notice of this Court that

¶62

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;

¶63

"ORDER

¶64

(i) The writ petitions are partly allowed.

¶65

7 -

¶66

NC: 2025:KHC:22989 WP No. 6500 of 2021

¶67

HC-KAR

¶68

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

¶69

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

¶70

(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 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.

¶71

(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.

¶72

(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

¶73

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:22989 WP No. 6500 of 2021

¶74

HC-KAR

¶75

and the BBMP to re-fix a standard after collecting empherical data.

¶76

(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.

¶77

(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.

¶78

(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."

¶79

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

¶80

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:22989 WP No. 6500 of 2021

¶81

HC-KAR

¶82

Municipal Corporations and Certain Other Law (Amendment) Acts of 2021 and 2023 (Karnataka Act Nos.01 of 2022 and 37 of 2024 respectively).

¶83

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.

¶84

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

¶85

10 - NC: 2025:KHC:22989 WP No. 6500 of 2021

¶86

HC-KAR

¶87

unlawful interpretations. Clause 3.8 of the BBMP Building Bye-laws, 2003, imposing 'Ground Rent', was also struck down.

¶88

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 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.

¶89

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

¶90

ORDER

¶91

(i) The writ petition is allowed.

¶92

(ii) The impugned demand notice dated 07.10.2020 issued by respondent No.5 as per Annexure-C is hereby set-aside.

¶93

11 - NC: 2025:KHC:22989 WP No. 6500 of 2021

¶94

HC-KAR

¶95

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

¶96

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

¶97

(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.

¶98

(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.

¶99

Pending applications, if any, are also disposed off.

¶100

Sd/(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE

¶101

SMJ

¶102

List No.: 2 Sl No.: 7

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

Case brief

What is this about?

Mr. Y. R. Anil 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

Sri T Prabhakar Vs the State of Karnataka

B S Anil Kumar Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt T Manjula Vs State of Karnataka