Sri G Kannan vs State Of Karnataka
2025 Latest Caselaw 6803 Kant

Karnataka High Court

Sri G Kannan vs State Of Karnataka on 27 June, 2025

                                               -1-
                                                             NC: 2025:KHC:23053
                                                        WP No. 20515 of 2024


                   HC-KAR




                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                            DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025

                                             BEFORE
                   THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
                          WRIT PETITION NO. 20515 OF 2024 (LB-BMP)


                   BETWEEN:

                         SRI. G. KANNAN
                         S/O T. GOPAL,
                         AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
                         R/AT NO.235/730/106/904/758,759,
                         NEAR POLICE STATION B.B. ROAD,
                         YELAHANKA, BANGALORE-560 064.
                         AND ALSO
                         NO.678/1581/417/364,
                         NEAR TILES FACTORY, 3RD DIVISION,
                         YELAHANKA TOWN,
                         BANGALORE-560 064.
                                                                  ...PETITIONER

                   (BY SRI. YASHAVANTHSWAMY A.M., ADVOCATE)

Digitally signed   AND:
by AL BHAGYA
Location: HIGH     1.    STATE OF KARNATAKA
COURT OF                 THE URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,
KARNATAKA
                         4TH FLOOR, VIKAS SOUDHA,
                         DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDI,
                         BANGALORE-560 001,
                         REP. BY ITS SECRETARY.

                   2.    THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
                         DEPARTMENT OF PARLIAMENTARY
                         AFFAIRS AND LEGISLATION,
                         VIKASA SOUDHA,
                         DR.B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
                         BANGALORE-560 001,
                               -2-
                                            NC: 2025:KHC:23053
                                         WP No. 20515 of 2024


HC-KAR




     REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

3.   BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE
     N.R. SQUARE, BANGALORE,
     BANGALORE-560 002,
     REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER.

4.   THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR
     TOWN PLANNING (WARD.004)
     BBMP, (YELAHANKA) ROOM NO.2,
     AMRUTHAHALLI MAIN ROAD,
     BYTARAYANPURA, BELLARY ROAD,
     BENGALURU-560 092.
                                               ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SPOORTHI, HCGP FOR R1 & R2;
    SRI. K.B. MONESH KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R3 & R4)

     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO i)
QUASH THE KARNATAKA MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS AND
CERTAIN OTHER LAW (AMENDMENT) ACT 2021 NO.1/2022
DATED 13/01/2022 ENACTED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT
PUBLISHED THROUGH NOTIFICATION BEARING NO.DPAL 50
SHASANA 2021 GAZETTE ON 13/01/2022 AT ANNEXURE-G
DECLARING IT TO BE ULTRA VIRES AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
SO FOR AS PETITIONER IS CONCERNED AND ETC.

    THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM:      HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM


                         ORAL ORDER

This petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:-

"i) Issue a writ of certiorari or similar writ or order or direction to quash the Karnataka

NC: 2025:KHC:23053

HC-KAR

Municipal Corporations and Certain other law(amendment) act 2021 act No.1/2022 dated 13/01/2022 enacted by the second respondent published through notification bearing No. DPAL 50 SHASANA 2021 gazette on 13/01/2022 at ANNEXURE-G declaring it to be ultravires and unconstitutional. So far as petitioner is concerned.

ii) Issue writ of certiorari or similar writ or order or direction to quash the office order bearing No. ADTP/PR/461/2021-22 dated 09/03/2022 issued by the third respondent at ANNEXURE-H. So far as petitioner is concerned.

iii) Issue a writ of certiorari to quash the demand note, and L.P.No.BBMP/Ad.Com/YLK/0140/ 24-25 and Project No.PRJ/1375/24-25 dated 26/07/2024, Site No.235/730,106/904/758, 759 Sy.no. B.B.Road, Allalasandra Village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore Ward No.004, Yelahanka Zone, Bangalore at ANNEXURE-D issued by the respondent No.4 in so far as demand notice towards. Fee payable to BBMP. So far as petitioner is concerned.

Sl.No. Details of fees Amount (rs) 1 Scrutiny fee 49,787.00 2 Licence fee 9,95,752.00

NC: 2025:KHC:23053

HC-KAR

3 Fee U/s 18 (1) of 2,59,978.00 KTCP Act (betterment fee) for building 4 Fee U/s 18 (1) of 6,69,395.00 KTCP Act (betterment levy) for site 5 Security deposit 2,82,406.00 6 Lake Rejuvenation fee 25,071.00 7 1% of labour cess 4,573.00 amount to BBMP 8 Ground Rent 9,08,061.00 (including 9% SGST) 9 Road cutting fee 0.00 10 Compound wall 1,380.00 charges 11 Water Supply Cess 88,291.00 12 Ring Road 88,291.00 Surcharge 13 Cess for Improvement 44,145.00 of slums 14 MRTS Surcharge 4,41,452.00 15 5% of administrative 34,849.00 charges to BBMP on cess and surcharge 16 Penalty 00.00 17 Miscellaneous charges 00.00 Total Rs. 38,93,431.00 Previously paid amt 29.00 Total amount to be 38,93,402.00 paid Rs

to be paid to BBMP are concerned. And Labour cess total amount Rs.4,52,747.00/- Issue writ of Certiorari or similar writ, order or direction to quash the Circular bearing No.He.Ni.Ka.Pa.Ko/P.A/320/2020-21 dated 14/08/2020 at ANNEXURE-J issued by the 3rd

NC: 2025:KHC:23053

HC-KAR

Respondent. So far as petitioner is concerned.

iv) 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 2nd respondent at ANNEXURE-K in so far as 18-A

(i) and) (iv) of Karnataka act No.23 of 2004 is concerned. So far as petitioner is concerned.

v) Grant an order, direction or writ in the nature of Certiorari quashing the notification issued by the 1st respondent bearing No.UDD 3TTP 2015 dated 25/2/2020 as contained in ANNEXURE-L in so far as the amended Rule 37-A and rule 37-C are concerned, so far as petitioner is concerned.

vi) Issue any other appropriate writ or order or direction to the respondents demand fit in the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity.

vii) Pass any such other orders as this Hon'ble court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest justice and equity."

NC: 2025:KHC:23053

HC-KAR

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.

(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

NC: 2025:KHC:23053

HC-KAR

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.

(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,

NC: 2025:KHC:23053

HC-KAR

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

(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

NC: 2025:KHC:23053

HC-KAR

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

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

- 10 -

NC: 2025:KHC:23053

HC-KAR

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 26.07.2024 issued by respondent No.4 as per Annexure-D is hereby set-aside.

(iii) Respondent Nos.3 and 4 - BBMP are hereby directed to issue fresh/modified plan as the case may be.

(iv) Respondent Nos.3 and 4 - BBMP are hereby directed to forthwith process the petitioner's application seeking building

- 11 -

NC: 2025:KHC:23053

HC-KAR

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 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.

Pending applications, if any, are also disposed off.

Sd/-

(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE

NBM