Karnataka High Court
Sri N Ramesh vs The Commissioner on 23 June, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:21717
WP No. 52676 of 2019
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JUNE, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
WRIT PETITION NO.52676 OF 2019 (LB-BMP)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI N RAMESH
S/O T H NARAYANASWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
R/AT NO.1033, THANISANDRA
SHIVARAM KARANTH ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 077.
2. SRI N SURESH
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
S/O NARAYANASWAMY,
R/AT NO.136, 4TH AVENUE
FERNS' RESIDENCY, KOTHANUR
NARAYANAPURA CROSS,
Digitally BEHIND KRISTU JAYANTHI COLLEGE
signed by H HENNURU MAIN ROAD,
K HEMA BENGALURU-560 077
Location: REPRESENTED BY THEIR REGISTERED GPA HOLDER
HIGH G.V. RAJASEKHAR, MANAGING PARTNER
COURT OF OF M/S. VISHALAKSHI HOUSING PROJETCTS.
KARNATAKA
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. NAGARAJA T., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE COMMISSIONER,
BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE
N.R.CIRCLE,
BANGALORE - 560 002.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:21717
WP No. 52676 of 2019
HC-KAR
2. THE JOINT DIRECTOR
TOWN PLANNING-(NORTH), BBMP,
BUILDING LICENSE CELL
N.R. SQUARE, BENGALURU-560 002.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. ARAVIND M. NEGLUR, ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
QUASH DEMAND NOTICE DATED 28.11.2019, BEARING
NO.BBMP/AD.DIR/JD/NORTH/0040/18-19, PRODUCED AT
ANNEXURE-C, ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT, THE JOINT
DIRECTOR, TOWN PLANNING-(NORTH), BBMP, BUILDING
LICENSE CELL, N.R.SQUARE, BENGALURU-560002, 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
The captioned petition is filed seeking for the
following reliefs:
"Wherefore, it is most respectfully prayed that
this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a
writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other
writ, order or direction:-
NC: 2025:KHC:21717
HC-KAR
a. Quashing Demand Notice Dt:
28/11/2019, bearing No. BBMP/Ad.Dir
/JD/NORTH/0040/18-19, produced at
Annexure-C, issued by 2nd respondent,
The Joint Director, Town Planning-
(North), BBMP, Building License Cell, NR
Square, Bengaluru-560002,
b. Issue such writ in the nature of
Mandamus directing the respondents so
as not to insist/demand the Ground rent
and Security deposit for issuance
approved plan in favour of petitioner in
view of the Annexure-C. 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
under various heads, without sanction by
the Government; i.e., Annexure-e is
concerned.
d. declare that the ground rent and levied
on the petitioner for obtaining approved
plan is bad in law, since the petitioner is
not using the public land/property for
stocking of building materials for
NC: 2025:KHC:21717
HC-KAR
construction purposes; as claimed under
Annexure-e.
e. Pass such other orders including the
order as to costs as this Hon'ble Court
deems fit to grant under 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.36017/2018 and
connected matters. The Co-ordinate Bench, while
deciding the issue, has held that the bye-laws under which
Ground Rent, License Fee, Building License fee, Scrutiny
fee are levied are ultra vires the Act. The Co-ordinate
Bench also quashed the circular dated 04.09.2015 and
Government circulars dated 27.01.2017 and 30.03.2017.
Therefore, this Court deems it fit to cull out the operative
portion of the order, which reads as under;
"O R D E R
(a) All the Writ Petitions are allowed.
NC: 2025:KHC:21717
HC-KAR
(b) The bye-laws under which Ground Rent,
Licence Fee, Building Licence Fee, Scrutiny Fee,
Security Deposit are all held ultravires the Act and
are resultantly rendered unenforceable.
(c) The Circular bearing
No.ºÉ¤£ÀAiÉÆÃ/eÉ.r(G)/rJªÀiï3/¦Dgï/320/2015-16 dated
04.09.2015 stands quashed.
(d) The Circular bearing No.£ÀCE 36 ¨ÉªÀÄ¥Áæ 2016
(¨sÁUÀ) dated 27.01.2017 and the Circular bearing No.
ºÉ¤£ÀAiÉÆÃ/¦Dgï/1533/2016-17 dated 30.03.2017
demanding Lake Rejuvenation Fee are quashed.
(e) Imposition of labour cess under the
Welfare Cess Act is upheld, but its demand for
payment upfront in terms of Government Orders
dated 18.01.2007 and 28.02.2007 stands quashed.
(f) The State or the BBMP is not precluded
from bringing in the impugned levies under the
provisions of the Act or the Rules by making
suitable amendments to the Act and the Rules. 368
(g) Petitioners in all these petitions who have
deposited certain amounts in terms of the interim
order passed by this Court before this Court are
entitled to refund of the amounts so deposited.
NC: 2025:KHC:21717
HC-KAR
(h) Insofar as refund in other cases who have
paid to the Corporation under protest, they shall be
entitled to such refund only if the same is not
collected from the consumers of the apartments,
businesses as the case would be.
(i) Insofar as all other payments made, they
would all be at liberty to give representation to the
BBMP and the BBMP would consider the refund of
the amounts, in accordance with law and the
findings of this Court.
(j) If representations are made by the
petitioners for refund, the BBMP shall pass
appropriate orders within 12 weeks from the date
of such representations.
In view of disposal of the petitions, all
pending Interlocutory Applications also stand
disposed."
3. In the considered view of this Court, the issues
raised in the present writ petition stand squarely covered
by the authoritative pronouncement rendered by the Co-
ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.36017/2018 and
connected matters. The Co-ordinate Bench, after
examining the statutory framework and the impugned levy
NC: 2025:KHC:21717
HC-KAR
mechanisms adopted by the BBMP, categorically held that
the imposition of Ground Rent, Licence Fee, Building
Licence Fee, Scrutiny Fee, and Security Deposit lacked
statutory sanction and were ultra vires the Karnataka
Municipal Corporations Act, 1976. The Co-ordinate Bench
further held that Clause 3.8 of the BBMP Building Bye-
laws, 2003, which provided for imposition of Ground Rent,
was also devoid of legal authority and consequently struck
it down. The Court also quashed the impugned Circular
dated 04.09.2015 issued by respondent No.4, as well as
the Government Orders dated 27.01.2017 and
30.03.2017, which had directed collection of such fees
without statutory backing. With specific reference to
labour welfare cess, the Co-ordinate Bench upheld the
competence of the State to levy the cess under the
Building and Other Construction Workers' Welfare Cess
Act, 1996, but set aside the directive mandating its
upfront collection through Government Orders dated
18.01.2007 and 28.02.2007, thereby rendering the
NC: 2025:KHC:21717
HC-KAR
demand raised in anticipation of sanction of building plans
unlawful. The Co-ordinate Bench also clarified that the
only charging provision available under the Act was sub-
section (20-b) of Section 423, which merely enabled
collection of fees for services relating to burial grounds
and crematoria, and could not be relied upon for the
imposition of unrelated charges such as ground rent or
scrutiny fee. In light of these clear and binding findings,
the controversy raised in the present writ petition does not
survive for independent adjudication, as the grievance of
the petitioner is directly addressed and resolved by the
said judgment. Therefore, this Court is of the considered
opinion that the present writ petition deserves to be
allowed by applying the ratio and operative portion of the
judgment rendered in W.P.No.36017/2018 and connected
matters.
4. In view of the above, this Court proceeds to pass the
following;
NC: 2025:KHC:21717
HC-KAR
ORDER
(i) The writ petition is allowed.
(ii) The impugned demand notice dated
28.11.2019 issued by respondent No.2 as
per Annexure-C is hereby set-aside.
(iii) Respondent- BBMP is hereby
directed to issue fresh/modified plan as the
case may be.
(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.
(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 lease 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.
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:21717
HC-KAR
Pending applications, if any, are also disposed off.
Sd/-
(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM)
JUDGE
VMB
