Writ Petition No. 17286 of 2021 · The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:21303 WP No. 17286 of 2021 HC-KAR IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO.17286 OF 2021 (LB-BMP) BETWEEN: 1. M/S A G RAMAIAH REDDY CHARITABLE TRUST HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.200/66, KAIKONDARAHALLI, CARMELARAM POST, BANGALORE – 560 035. 2. SRI A.R. SHIVARAM AGED 65 YEARS, S/O LATE A.G. RAMAIAH REDDY, NO.670, 6TH CROSS ROAD, 3RD BLOCK, KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE – 560 034 Digitally signed by PAVITHRA B Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA 3. SRI K.N. SOMASHEKAR AGED 70 YEARS, S/O LATE NANJAPPA, 4. SMT K T SHARADAMMA
Legal Reasoning
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, W/O SRI K N SOMASHEKAR, 5. SRI S NAVEEN KUMAR AGED 32 YEARS, S/O SRI. K.N. SOMAHSHEKAR, PETITION NOS. 3 TO 5 ARE RESIDING AT KAIKONDARAHALLI VILLAGE, - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:21303 WP No. 17286 of 2021 HC-KAR VARTHUR HOBLI, BANGALORE EAST TALUK. REPRESENTED BY P1 TO P5 THEIR GPA HOLDER, M/S BREN CORPORATION, A PROPRIETARY CONCERN, THIRD FLOOR, BREN BALAVANA, PLOT NO.61, 5TH A BLOCK, KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE – 560 095. BY ITS SOLE PROPRIETOR, SRI J BOOPESH REDDY (BY SRI. VIVEKANANDA T.P., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, 4TH FLOOR, VIKAS SOUDHA, DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE – 560 001. …PETITIONERS 2. THE BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE N.R. SQUARE, BANGALORE – 560 002 REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER 3. THE JOINT DIRECTOR TOWN PLANNING (NORTH) BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE, N.R.SQUARE, BANGALORE – 560 002 (BY SMT. SPOORTHY.V, HCGP FOR R1; SRI.S.N.PRASHANTH CHANDRA, ADV., FOR R2 AND R3) …RESPONDENTS - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:21303 WP No. 17286 of 2021 HC-KAR THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH PROVISIONS OF SECTION 18-A OF KARNATAKA TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT, 1961 BROUGHT INTO EFFECT BY KARNATAKA CT NO.23 OF 2004 BY THE R1 AT ANNEXURE-M IN SO FAR AS 18-A(i) AND (iv) OF KARNATAKA ACT NO.23 OF 2004 IS CONCERNED AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL ORDER Petitioners in the captioned petition have sought the following reliefs: (i) 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 lst Respondent at Annexure-M in so far as 18-A(i) and (iv) of Karnataka Act No.23 of 2004 is concerned. (ii) (iii) (iv) Grant an order, direction or writ in the nature of Certiorari quashing the Notification issued by the lst Respondent bearing No. UDD 3 TTP 2015 dated 25.02.2020 as contained in ANNEXURE-N in so far as the amended Rule 37-A and Rule 37- C are concerned; Issue a writ of certiorari or similar writ of order or direction to quash quash the Circular bearing No. He.Ni.Ka.Pa.ko/P.R/320/20202 dated 14.08.2020 at Annexure-L issued by the 2nd Respondent. Issue a writ of certiorari or similar writ of order or direction to quash the demand notice No.BBMP / Addl Dir 110 NORTH/1P/0077/2019-20 dated the 23.02.2021 at Annexure issued by -* - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:21303 WP No. 17286 of 2021 HC-KAR respondent No. 3 only in so far as the demand of Betterment fee of Rs. 46,01,689/- towards building, Rs.7,54,864/-towards service charges on the levy of Cess & Surcharge, surcharge of Rs.30,19,455/- towards Water Supply Scheme, Rs.30,19,455/- towards formation of Ring Road, Rs.15,09,727/- towards Improvement of Slums, Rs.75,48636/- towards Mass Rapid Transport; (v) Issue any other appropriate writ or order or direction as deemed fit in the circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity. 2. 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; "ORDER
Decision
(i) The writ petitions are partly allowed. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:21303 WP No. 17286 of 2021 HC-KAR (ii) The Karnataka Municipal Corporations and Certain Other Law (Amendment) Act, 2021 (Karnataka Act No.01 of 2022), is hereby quashed and set aside. (iii) The Karnataka Municipal Corporations and Certain Other Law (Amendment) Act, 2023, (Karnataka Act No.37 of 2024), is hereby quashed and set aside. (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. (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. (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 - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:21303 WP No. 17286 of 2021 HC-KAR and the BBMP to re-fix a standard after collecting empherical data. (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. (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. (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." 3. 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 - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:21303 WP No. 17286 of 2021 HC-KAR Municipal Corporations and Certain Other Law (Amendment) Acts of 2021 and 2023 (Karnataka Act Nos.01 of 2022 and 37 of 2024 respectively). 4. 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. 5. 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 - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:21303 WP No. 17286 of 2021 HC-KAR unlawful interpretations. Clause 3.8 of the BBMP Building Bye-laws, 2003, imposing 'Ground Rent', was also struck down. 6. 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. 7. In view of the above, this Court proceeds to pass the following; ORDER (i) (ii) The writ petition is allowed. The impugned demand notice issued by dated 23.02.2021 respondent per No.3 Annexure-K is hereby set-aside. as - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:21303 WP No. 17286 of 2021 HC-KAR (iii) (iv) (v) (vi) is hereby Respondent- BBMP directed to issue fresh/modified plan as the case may be. 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. the building It is made clear that the issuance of license and approval plan shall not be withheld merely on the ground that the BBMP is contemplating to file an writ appeal against the reported judgment. the building If licence 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. Pending applications, if any, are also disposed off SD/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE PB List No.: 2 Sl No.: 9