Karnataka High Court
Dr S D Mamatha vs The State Of Karnataka on 23 June, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:21738
WP No. 8300 of 2021
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. 8300 OF 2021 (LB-BMP)
BETWEEN:
1. DR. S D MAMATHA
W/O DR. RAMESH MARIAYAPPA GOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
R/AT NO.214, 100 FEET ROAD,
2ND BLOCK, 3RD PHASE,
BANASHANKARI 2ND STAGE,
BANGALORE-560085
REPRESENTED BY GPA HOLDER
V K JAGADISH BABU,
S/O SRI VENKATA SWAMY NAIDU,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. DALWAI VENKATESH, ADVOCATE)
Digitally AND:
signed by H
K HEMA
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
Location:
HIGH DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT,
COURT OF VIKASA SOUDHA,
KARNATAKA
DR. B R AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU-560001
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THE LABOUR DEPARTMENT,
VIKASA SOUDHA,
DR. B R AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU-560001
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:21738
WP No. 8300 of 2021
HC-KAR
3. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF PARLIAMENTARY
AFFAIRS AND LEGISLATION,
VIKASA SOUDHA,
DR. B R AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU-560001
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
4. BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE
N R SQUARE, BANGALORE-560002
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER.
5. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR
TOWN PLANNING - (YELAHANKA)
ROOM NO.2,
BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
AMRUTHAHALLI MAIN ROAD,
BYATARAYANAPURA,
BELLARY ROAD, BENGALURU-560092.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. SPOORTHY V., HCGP FOR R.1 & R.2;
SMT. SINCHANA M.R., ADVOCATE FOR R.4 & R.5.)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
QUASH RULE 3 OF THE KARNATAKA PLANNING AUTHORITIES
(AMENDMENT) RULES 2019 SUBSTITUTING RULE 37-A(1) VIDE
NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT BEARING
NUMBER UDD 3 TTP 2015 DATED 25.02.2020 PUBLISHED
26.02.2020 IN KARNATAKA GAZETTE PART IV-A PRODUCED AT
ANNEXURE G, ETC.
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:21738
WP No. 8300 of 2021
HC-KAR
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 the Petitioner prays that this
Hon'ble Court may be pleased to
i. Issue a writ of certiorari quashing Rule 3 of the
Karnataka Planning Authorities (Amendment)
Rules 2019 substituting Rule 37-A(1) vide
notification issued by the 1 Respondent bearing
number UDD 3 TTP 2015 dated 25.02.2020
published 26.02.2020 in Karnataka Gazette
Part IV-A produced at Annexure G.
ii. Consequently, issue a writ of certiorari
quashing circular bearing
He.Ni.Ka.Pa.Ko/P.R/320/2020-21 dated:
14.08.2020 issued by the 4th Respondent
based the Karnataka Planning Authorities
(Amendment) Rules2019 so far as the
NC: 2025:KHC:21738
HC-KAR
Petitioner is concerned is produced at
Annexure H.
iii. Issue a writ of certiorari quashing circular
bearing HENINAYO/JD(U)/DM3/PR/320/2015-
16 dated 04.09.2015 issued by the 4th
Respondent prescribing market value at
Rs.50,000/- per square metre and accordingly
calculating scrutiny fee, licence fee and ground
rent so far as the Petitioner is concerned is
produced at Annexure F.
iv. Issue a writ of certiorari quashing the demand
notice No.BBMP/Ad.Com./YLK/1457/20-21
dated 22.03.2021 produced at Annexure-E
issued to the Petitioner by the 5th Respondent
bearing and direct the 4th and 5th Respondent
to re-calculate the scrutiny fee, licence fee on
the basis of actual guideline value applicable to
the Property of the Petitioner, exempt from
pavment of ground rent and betterment
charges for sital value, calculate the
betterment charges for building as per rates
applicable to residential building, calculate the
security deposit as per Byclaw4.1.2 of the
Bangalore Mahanagara Palike Building Bye-
laws 2003 and not tocollect 1% administrative
charges on labour cess from the Petitioner.
NC: 2025:KHC:21738
HC-KAR
v. Issue a writ of mandamus directing the 4th and
5th Respondents to issue the sanction plan in
favour of the Petitioner for construction. in the
Property;
vi. Grant such other and further relief as this
Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts and
circumstances of the case, in the interest of
justice and equity.
2. The Co-ordinate Benches of this Court, in
W.P.No.23086/2022 and connected matters(herein
referred to as "M/s Sapthagiri Shelters") as well as
W.P.No.36017/2018 and connected matters(herein
referred to as "Sunderam Shetty"), have comprehensively
adjudicated the issue involved and settled the controversy.
In Sunderam Shetty and connected cases, the Co-
ordinate Bench declared the levies of Ground Rent, License
Fee, Building License Fee, and Scrutiny Fee under the
relevant bye-laws as ultra vires the Act and quashed the
Government Circulars dated 04.09.2015, 27.01.2017, and
30.03.2017. Similarly, in M/s Sapthagiri Shelters and
connected matters, the Co-ordinate Bench struck down the
NC: 2025:KHC:21738
HC-KAR
Karnataka Act No.01 of 2022 and Karnataka Act No.37 of
2024, holding that linking fees under Rule 37-A of the
Karnataka Planning Authority Rules, 1965 to
market/guidance value under Section 45-B of the
Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 is illegal. It further quashed all
related Circulars and declared Clause 3.8 of the BBMP
Building Bye-laws, 2003, pertaining to Ground Rent, as
invalid.
3. The issues raised in the present writ petition are
squarely covered by the above binding decisions, wherein
the relevant bye-laws and government circulars have been
set aside.
4. In light of the authoritative pronouncements, the
present petition does not warrant separate adjudication
and is liable to be allowed in terms of the operative
directions issued in the aforesaid writ petitions.
NC: 2025:KHC:21738
HC-KAR
5. Accordingly, this Court proceeds to pass the
following:
ORDER
(i) The writ petition is allowed.
(ii) The impugned demand notice dated
22.03.2021 issued by respondent No.5 as per
Annexure-E is hereby set-aside.
(iii) Respondent - BBMP is hereby directed to
issue fresh/modified plan as the case may be.
(iv) Respondent - BBMP is 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 of the plan shall
not be withheld merely on the ground that the
BBMP is contemplating to file an appeal against
the reported judgment.
NC: 2025:KHC:21738
HC-KAR
(vi) If the building license and sanction plan
are issued, the same shall be subject to the
outcome of any appeal that may be filed by the
BBMP against the said judgment.
Pending applications, if any, are also disposed
off.
Sd/-
(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM)
JUDGE
VMB
