Karnataka High Court
Mr M R Ramaiah vs State Of Karnataka on 19 June, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:21306
WP No. 5543 of 2022
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.5543 OF 2022 (LB-BMP)
BETWEEN:
MR. M.R. RAMAIAH,
S/O RANGA SWAMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS
R/AT "GOKULA HOUSE",
DR M.S.RAMAIAH ROAD
GOKULA, BENGALURU - 560 054.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. RAJU.S, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
Digitally signed
by PAVITHRA B REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
Location: HIGH URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
COURT OF
KARNATAKA 4TH FLOOR, VIKAS SOUDHA,
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR
VIKASA SOUDHA
BENGALURU - 560 001
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
3. THE BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE
N.R.SQUARE, BENGALURU - 560 002
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:21306
WP No. 5543 of 2022
HC-KAR
4. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
TOWN PLANNING,
MAHADEVAPURA
BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
RHB COLONY, WHITEFIELD MAIN ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 048.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. BOPANNA B., AGA FOR R1 AND R2;
SRI. V.G.BHANUPRAKASH, ADVOCATE FOR R3 AND R4)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 PRAYING TO
QUASH THE DEMAND NOTE (CHALLAN/MEMO) FOR PAYMENT
OF FEE DTD 16.02.2022 VIDE ANNX-C ISSUED BY R-4 IN SO
FAR AS THE DEMAND OF RS.19,65,714/- TOWARDS GROUND
RENT INCLUDING CGST AND SGST, RS.21,20,185/- TOWARDS
LICENSE FEE, RS.10,62,600/- TOWARDS SCRUTINY FEE,
RS.58/552/- TOWARDS SECURITY DEPOSIT, RS.10,62,600/-
TOWARDS FEE U/S 18(1) OF KTCP ACT (BETTERMENT LEVY)
FOR BUILDING, RS.12,07,144/- TOWARDS FEE TOWARDS FEE
U/S 18(1) OF KTCP ACT (BETTERMENT LEVY) FOR SITE,
RS.2,26,974/- TOWARDS WATER SUPPLY SCHEME (BWSSB),
RS.2,26,974/- TOWARDS RING ROAD (BDA), RS.1,13,487/-
TOWARDS IMPROVING SLUMS (KSCB), RS.11,34,872/-
TOWARDS MASS RAPID TRANSPORT SYSTEM (BDA), RS.85,115
LEVY AND COLLECTION OF 5 PERCENT SURCHARGE TO BE
PAID TO BBMP AND RS.19,34,000/- TOWARDS II LABOUR
CESS 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
Petitioner in the captioned petition has sought the
following reliefs:
NC: 2025:KHC:21306
HC-KAR
a) Issue a writ of certiorari or similar writ or order or
direction to quash the demand note (Challan / Memo)
for payment of fee bearing L.P. No. BBMP/EoDB/CH/
41110/21-22, dated 16.02.2022 vide ANNEXURE-C
issued by respondent No.4 in so far as the demand of
Rs. 19,65,714/- towards Ground Rent including CGST
and SGST, Rs.21,20,185/- towards License Fee,
Rs.10,62,600/- towards Scrutiny Fee, Rs.58,552/-
towards Security deposit, Rs.10,62,600/- towards Fee
U/s 18(1) of KTCP act (Betterment Levy) for building
RS.12,07,144/- towards fee towards Fee U/s 18(1) of
KTCP act (Betterment Levy) for site, Rs. 2,26,974/-
towards Water Supply scheme (BWSSB), Ring Road
(BDA),Rs.2,26,974/- towards Rs.1,13,487/- towards
improving Slums(KSCB), Rs.11,34,872/- towards Mass
Rapid Transport System (BDA), Rs. 85,115 Levy and
collection of 5% surcharge to be paid to BBMP and Rs.
19,34,000/-towards II labour cess is concerned.
b) Issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the
respondents not to insist/demand the petitioner for the
payment of fee as in Annexure-C except Lake
Rejuvenation Cess, Administrative Charges, Road
cutting Fee and Compound wall charges for issuance
fresh plan approval in favor of petitioner and grant
such other reliefs;
c) declare that the BBMP has no authority to collect the
taxes under the guise of collection of ground rent and
other fee as detailed, without sanction by the
Government;
d) issue writ of mandamus or similar writ or order or
direction directing the respondent Nos.3 and 4 to issue
building fresh plan and license pursuant to their
communication issued by the respondent No.4 without
insisting for payment of amount mentioned above.
NC: 2025:KHC:21306
HC-KAR
e) issue any other appropriate writ or order or direction
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
(i) The writ petitions are partly allowed.
(ii) The Karnataka Municipal Corporations and
Certain Other Law (Amendment) Act, 2021
(Karnataka Act No.01 of 2022), is hereby
quashed and set aside.
NC: 2025:KHC:21306
HC-KAR
(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 and the BBMP to
re-fix a standard after collecting empherical data.
NC: 2025:KHC:21306
HC-KAR
(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
Municipal Corporations and Certain Other Law
NC: 2025:KHC:21306
HC-KAR
(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
unlawful interpretations. Clause 3.8 of the BBMP Building
NC: 2025:KHC:21306
HC-KAR
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) The writ petition is allowed.
(ii) The impugned demand notice dated
16.02.2022 issued by respondent No.4 as
per Annexure-C is hereby set-aside.
NC: 2025:KHC:21306
HC-KAR
(iii) Respondent Nos.3 and 4 are hereby
directed to issue fresh sanction plan
forthwith.
(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.
(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.
(vi) If the building 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
