SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Kar) 259

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU 
Sachin Shankar Magadum, J.
M/S. Aryan Landmarks - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Karnataka The Urban Development Department - Respondents
Writ Petition No. 23197 of 2024 (LB-BMP)
Decided On : 27-06-2025


Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Sri. Sudhakar G.V., Advocate
For the Respondent:Sri. Bopanna B., Aga, Sri. K.B. Monesh Kumar, Advocate

The court confirmed that municipal amendments are unconstitutional if they conflict with prior judicial rulings and declared illegal the imposition of certain fees associated with development planning, establishing parameters for future applications.

Headnote:(A) Karnataka Municipal Corporations and Certain Other Law (Amendment) Act, 2021 - Act No. 1 of 2022; Karnataka Town & Country Planning Act, 1961 - Section 18-A - Challenging amendments to municipal and planning laws - The petition contests the legality of multiple amendments and associated fees as violating constitutional principles. (Paras 1-5)

(B) Judicial Precedent - Compliance with previous judgments - The court holds that since a coordinate bench has previously addressed similar issues, the current petition is substantially covered by that ruling, resulting in the quashing of challenged provisions. (Paras 3-6)

(C) Fee Collection - Guidelines for development plans - It is clarified that specific fees cannot be imposed on smaller plots and prior fees for land use changes must be acknowledged, with linkage to market values deemed illegal. (Paras 4-5)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged certain provisions of amendments to municipal laws, alleging they were unconstitutional and in violation of prior court judgments. Key issues included the legality of fees and coherence with statutory planning regulations.

Findings of Court:
The court quashed the amendments to the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act and associated fees, set provisions for development plans, and mandated the issuance of building permits without unnecessary delays.

Issues: The primary issues addressed were the constitutionality of the amendments, compliance with previous court rulings, and the legality of fee structures under municipal planning rules.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that previous judicial pronouncements are binding, invalidated contested amendments, and ruled that the imposition of fees under prior legislative frameworks must consider prior payments and applicability to specific plot sizes.

Result: Writ petition allowed; impugned orders set aside.

Table of Content
1. petition seeking multiple quash orders (Para 1)
2. previous rulings impact current petition (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
3. writ petition allowed with directives (Para 7)

ORDER :

Sachin Shankar Magadum, J.

This petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:-

“i) Grant an order declaring that the entire Karnataka Municipal Corporations and Certain Other Law (Amendment) Act, 2021 (Karnataka Act No. 01 of 2022) notified on 13/01/2022 (ANNEXURE-R) as being ultra vires the Constitution in so far, the Petitioner is concerned in so far, the Petitioner is concerned.

ii) To declare that Karnataka Municipal Corporations and Certain Other Law (Amendment) Act, 2021 (Karnataka Act No. 01 of 2022) notified on 13/01/2022 (ANNEXURE-R) is in violation/contrary to the decision of this Hon'ble Court in W.P No.4601/2020 (LB-BMP) which is at Annexure-P.

iii) Grant an order, direction or writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the Office Order No. HaNiNaYo/PR/461/2021-22 dated 09/03/2022 issued by Respondent No.3 as contained in (ANNEXURE-S) in so far, the Petitioner is concerned.

iv) grant an order, direction or writ in the nature of Certiorari quashing Section 18 -A of the Karnataka Town & Country Planning Act, 1961 brought into effect by Karnataka Act No. 23 of 2004 (Karnataka Town & Country Planning (Amendment) Act, 1998) as contained in (ANNEXURE-J) insofar as Section 18 -A(i) and (iv) of the Karnataka Act No. 23 of 2004 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 3 TTP 2015 dated 25/02/2020 as contained in (ANNEXURE-H) insofar as the inserted Rule 37-A and 37-C is concerned;

vi) issue a writ or order by way of certiorari quashing the circular dated 14/08/2020, bearing No. He.Ni.Ka.Pa.Ko/P.R/320/2020-21 issued by the Respondent No.3 (Annexure-K) in so far the Petitioner is concerned.

vii) Grant an order, direction or writ in the nature of Certiorari quashing the Notification issued by the 1st Respondent bearing No. UDD 23 TTP 2020 (E) dated 21/06/2021 as contained in (ANNEXURE-L) insofar as the inserted Rule 37-A and 37-C is concerned;

viii) issue a writ or order by way of certiorari quashing the circular dated 24/06/2021, bearing No. He.Ni.Na.Yo/P.R/320/2020-21 issued by the Respondent No.3 (Annexure-M) in so far the Petitioner is concerned.

ix) issue a writ or order by way of certiorari quashing the demand notice dated Nil, bearing No. BBMP/Addl.Dir/JDNORTH/ 0030/24-25, issued by the Respondent No.4 (Annexure-D) for demanding in so far it is concerned to Ground rent, GST on Ground rent, License fee, scrutiny fee, Betterment charges for building, security deposit, Cess for water supply scheme, Surcharge for formation outer ring road, Cess for improvement of slum, Surcharge for Mass Rapid Transport System, Labour cess and etc., as illegal, without jurisdiction and arbitrary.

x) Issue a writ or order or direction by way of mandamus directing the Respondent No.3 and 4 BBMP to issue the modified sanction plan for construction of the Apartment Building in the Schedule Property without insisting the Ground rent, GST on Ground rent, License fee, scrutiny fee, Betterment charges for building, security deposit, Cess for water supply scheme, Surcharge for formation outer ring road, Cess for improvement of slum and Surcharge for Mass Rapid Transport System, Labour cess and

xi) pass any such other order(s) as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the facts and 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,

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top