Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
R.DEVDAS, J.
M/s Sapthagiri Shelters - Appellant
Versus
The State Of Karnataka - Respondent
Writ Petition No.23086 of 2022 (LB-BMP) C/W Writ Petition Nos.16675/2018, 10970/2020, 12204/2020, 12271/2020, 12372/2020, 12373/2020, 12722/2020, 12740/2020, 12823/2020, 12882/2020, 12948/2020, 12956/2020, 13252/2020, 13600/2020, 13610/2020, 13641/2020, 13748/2020, 13869/2020, 13910/2020, 14010/2020, 14011/2020, 14020/2020, 14148/2020, 14163/2020, 14277/2020, 14439/2020, 14549/2020, 14552/2020, 14739/2020, 14743/2020, 14748/2020, 14760/2020, 14770/2020, 14775/2020, 14785/2020, 14840/2020, 14879/2020, 14881/2020, 14983/2020, 14988/2020, 14989/2020, 14995/2020, 14998/2020, 15170/2020, 15198/2020, 15307/2020, 15320/2020, 15342/2020, 15431/2020, 15435/2020, 168/2021, 1012/2021, 1327/2021, 1602/2021, 1699/2021, 2275/2021, 2289/2021, 2337/2021, 2522/2021, 2813/2021, 2896/2021, 3701/2021, 3872/2021, 4209/2021, 4223/2021, 4538/2021, 4880/2021, 5232/2021, 5252/2021, 5430/2021, 5896/2021, 6073/2021, 6454/2021, 6699/2021, 7168/2021, 7179/2021, 7195/2021, 7207/2021, 7610/2021, 8014/2021, 8020/2021, 8042/2021, 8071/2021, 8087/2021, 8148/2021, 8224/2021, 8243/2021, 8292/2021, 8311/2021, 8354/2021, 8372/2021, 8379/2021, 8421/2021, 8546/2021, 8573/2021, 8763/2021, 8796/2021, 8907/2021, 8925/2021, 8935/2021, 8951/2021, 9264/2021, 9414/2021, 9419/2021, 9439/2021, 9466/2021, 9536/2021, 9561/2021, 9570/2021, 9667/2021, 9765/2021, 9773/2021, 9813/2021, 9858/2021, 9923/2021, 10071/2021, 10113/2021, 10268/2021, 10601/2021 10647/2021, 10681/2021, 10712/2021, 10715/2021, 10727/2021, 10732/2021, 10848/2021, 10861/2021, 11024/2021, 11056/2021, 11276/2021, 11280/2021, 11289/2021, 11313/2021, 11343/2021, 11782/2021, 11823/2021, 11897/2021, 11916/2021, 11928/2021, 11945/2021, 12082/2021, 12376/2021, 12453/2021, 12654/2021, 12657/2021, 13355/2021, 13366/2021, 13768/2021, 13787/2021, 13928/2021, 13966/2021, 14183/2021, 14197/2021, 14426/2021, 14545/2021, 15029/2021, 15118/2021, 15224/2021, 15485/2021, 15619/2021, 16044/2021, 16599/2021, 16739/2021, 16902/2021, 16941/2021, 17137/2021, 17160/2021, 18721/2021, 23066/2021, 654/2022, 1057/2022, 4344/2022, 5844/2022, 6133/2022, 7372/2022, 7423/2022, 7424/2022, 7575/2022, 8096/2022, 8754/2022, 8957/2022, 8961/2022, 8979/2022, 9001/2022, 9175/2022, 10069/2022, 10144/2022, 10313/2022, 10422/2022, 10475/2022, 10494/2022, 10675/2022, 10928/2022, 10992/2022, 11020/2022, 11217/2022, 11379/2022, 11533/2022, 11636/2022, 11731/2022, 11831/2022, 11835/2022, 12367/2022, 13089/2022, 13199/2022, 13228/2022, 14249/2022, 14422/2022, 14450/2022, 14456/2022, 14542/2022, 15765/2022, 15891/2022, 16095/2022, 16665/2022, 16973/2022, 17386/2022, 17600/2022, 18342/2022, 18680/2022, 18849/2022, 19006/2022, 19770/2022, 20826/2022, 20842/2022, 20898/2022, 21157/2022, 21589/2022, 22660/2022, 23124/2022, 23784/2022, 24303/2022, 24433/2022, 24447/2022, 25035/2022, 25143/2022, 25850/2022, 26070/2022, 26155/2022, 638/2023, 882/2023, 1010/2023, 1383/2023, 1467/2023, 1621/2023, 2058/2023, 4348/2023, 4430/2023, 4561/2023, 4764/2023, 4848/2023, 4849/2023, 4909/2023, 4986/2023, 5309/2023, 5368/2023, 5795/2023, 5801/2023, 5953/2023, 6184/2023, 6226/2023, 6328/2023, 6410/2023, 6416/2023, 6832/2023, 6958/2023, 7048/2023, 7163/2023, 7198/2023, 7205/2023, 7273/2023, 7638/2023, 7810/2023, 7813/2023, 7835/2023, 7858/2023, 7936/2023, 7941/2023, 7945/2023, 7960/2023, 8188/2023, 8194/2023, 8430/2023, 8659/2023, 8741/2023, 8748/2023, 9066/2023, 9792/2023, 9822/2023, 9891/2023, 10421/2023, 10458/2023, 10591/2023, 10601/2023, 10882/2023, 11098/2023, 11327/2023, 11352/2023, 11382/2023, 11815/2023, 12569/2023, 12641/2023, 12968/2023, 15121/2023, 15602/2023, 15963/2023, 16222/2023, 16232/2023, 17436/2023, 17798/2023, 17830/2023, 17886/2023, 17888/2023, 19810/2023, 19827/2023, 20459/2023, 21353/2023, 21418/2023, 21429/2023, 21437/2023, 21443/2023, 21478/2023, 22124/2023, 22180/2023, 22264/2023, 22305/2023, 22441/2023, 22627/2023, 22628/2023, 22703/2023, 22710/2023, 22722/2023, 22843/2023, 23414/2023, 23644/2023, 23926/2023, 23983/2023, 23986/2023, 24044/2023, 24341/2023, 24434/2023, 24474/2023, 24564/2023, 24606/2023, 24658/2023, 24669/2023, 24728/2023, 24801/2023, 24840/2023, 24859/2023, 25216/2023, 25549/2023, 25581/2023, 25782/2023, 25844/2023, 25873/2023, 25888/2023, 26015/2023, 26081/2023, 26306/2023, 26327/2023, 26330/2023, 26332/2023, 26437/2023, 26480/2023, 26499/2023, 26548/2023, 26868/2023, 26879/2023, 27025/2023, 27198/2023, 27349/2023, 27354/2023, 27381/2023, 27468/2023, 27511/2023, 27549/2023, 27690/2023, 27726/2023, 27732/2023, 27837/2023, 27881/2023, 27928/2023, 28370/2023, 28388/2023, 28395/2023, 28495/2023, 28547/2023, 28652/2023, 28785/2023, 28913/2023, 29149/2023, 258/2024, 681/2024, 796/2024, 859/2024, 1006/2024, 1239/2024, 1276/2024, 1442/2024, 1470/2024, 1587/2024, 1656/2024, 1715/2024, 1787/2024, 1825/2024, 1961/2024, 2153/2024, 2445/2024, 2510/2024, 2603/2024, 2702/2024, 2718/2024, 2755/2024, 2799/2024, 2890/2024, 2942/2024, 3089/2024, 3103/2024, 3184/2024, 3341/2024, 3463/2024, 3525/2024, 3543/2024, 3556/2024, 3715/2024, 3733/2024, 4186/2024, 4719/2024, 4845/2024, 5004/2024, 5033/2024, 5168/2024, 5191/2024, 5246/2024, 5322/2024, 5672/2024, 5905/2024, 6206/2024, 6268/2024, 6520/2024, 6535/2024, 6679/2024, 6841/2024, 6860/2024, 7022/2024, 7124/2024, 7233/2024, 7300/2024, 7316/2024, 7318/2024, 7339/2024, 7380/2024, 7493/2024, 7555/2024, 7618/2024, 7877/2024, 7949/2024, 8044/2024, 8058/2024, 8301/2024, 8349/2024, 8478/2024, 8516/2024, 8919/2024, 8929/2024, 8964/2024, 9002/2024, 9014/2024, 9049/2024, 9059/2024, 9682/2024, 9724/2024, 9762/2024, 9981/2024, 10031/2024, 10248/2024, 10249/2024, 10347/2024, 10834/2024, 10969/2024, 11016/2024, 11056/2024, 11089/2024, 11106/2024, 11338/2024, 11393/2024, 11408/2024, 11555/2024, 11588/2024, 11671/2024, 11761/2024, 11826/2024, 11832/2024, 11891/2024, 12036/2024, 12214/2024, 12349/2024, 13040/2024, 18146/2024, 18162/2024, 18843/2024 (LB-BMP)
Decided on : 05-06-2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. legality of bbmp's fees under new amendments. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments against amendments and implications of prior rulings. (Para 3 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. counterarguments related to legality of fees. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 4. challenges regarding specific fee structures. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 5. issues surrounding fee legality and improper collection. (Para 21 , 22 , 24 , 25 , 26) |
| 6. arguments against doubled taxation and applicability. (Para 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31) |
| 7. constitutional limits on legislative amendments. (Para 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36) |
| 8. examination of legal principles and precedents. (Para 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42) |
| 9. presumption of constitutionality and legal challenges. (Para 43 , 44 , 45 , 46) |
| 10. judicial review on amendments and fiscal legitimacy. (Para 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52) |
| 11. the lack of nexus between fee rates and market values. (Para 53 , 54 , 55) |
| 12. implications of fee structures under planning acts. (Para 56 , 57 , 58) |
| 13. court's decision and provisions quashed. (Para 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65) |
| 14. final order and recommendations regarding fee structure. (Para 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 70) |
ORDER :
R. DEVDAS, J.
As a fall out of the judgment rendered by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court declaring the Bye-laws under which ground rent, licence fee, scrutiny fee, security deposit etc., was sought to be levied, as ultra vires the Act and therefore unenforceable at the hands of Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (for short ‘BBMP’), amendments were made to the BBMP Act. Several hundreds of petitions are filed by residents and builders raising a challenge to the amendments and the consequential imposts/levy in terms of demands raised by the respondent – BBMP. Therefore, all these writ petitions are clubbed and heard together and disposed of by this common order.
2. In Mr. Sunderam Shetty and Others Vs. State of Karnataka rep. by its Secretary, Urban Development Department and Others, ILR 2021 KAR 3968 – the co-ordinate bench considered whether the impugned imposts/fee suffer from want of legal sanction, insofar as ground rent, licence fee, scrutiny fee, security deposit, lake rejuvenation fee, service charges at 1% of the amount payable to the Palike from out of Building Construction Workers cess – Labour cess. It was held that the levy and collection did not have any legal basis and such action was based on Circulars which had no force of law. Accordingly, Circulars dated 04.09.2015 and 27.01.2017 issued by the BBMP were quashed and set aside. However, it was also held that the State or the BBMP are 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. As a consequence, the respondent - State and the BBMP chose to amend and insert the impugned provisions in the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 and the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Act, 2020 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘BBMP Act’, for short), with retrospective effect for validation of fee and penalty collected by the BBMP at the time of sanction of building ILR 2021 KAR 3968 plans and grant of commencement certificate and completion certificate to buildings and also to provide exemption or concession to Boards or Corporations or Organisations owned or controlled by the Central Government or the State Government from the payment of such fee.
3. One of the main grounds of attack is that the impugned provisions do not in any way set out to change the circumstances under which the imposts/levy were declared as ultra vires in Sunderam Shetty. It is contended that such action is an attempt to nullify the judgment of this Court, without taking due care to remove the basis of the judgment. Several other grounds are raised challenging the impugned amendments and therefore, it would be better to proceed enumerating the broad grounds.
4 (i) In Sunderam Shetty, this Court has already considered the legality of the impug
Amendments to municipal fee structures were quashed for failing to rectify judicially identified legal flaws, emphasizing the principle of quid pro quo in administrative fees.
The Court declared the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Amendment Act, 2021 and related demands unconstitutional, emphasizing the illegality of fee linkage to market value and ensuring no double char....
The court quashed the unconstitutional amendments, declaring prior fees as sufficient for development plans, prohibiting additional charges linked to market value.
Taxes not to be imposed save by authority of law - Article 265 of Constitution is the source of power for the Union and States to impose taxes in accordance with law. Article 265 of the Constitution ....
The imposition of a fee for buildings exceeding 3000 square feet under Rule 12(9) is ultra vires the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008, as it exceeds the authority granted by th....
The imposition of a fee for building construction exceeding 3000 sq. ft. under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules is ultra vires the Act, violating constitutional provisions and ....
The court established that the imposition of delay fees by circular without statutory authority contradicts the principles of law, rendering such fees arbitrary and illegal.
It is now well settled that the expression “fee” is also comprehended in the expression “tax” for the purpose of Article 265 and even for the collection of a “fee”, authority of law (i.e. legislative....
Sub-section (2) of section 479 upheld; Commissioner’s power to fix advertisement license fees with Corporation sanction not excessive delegation, as guidelines exist in statute, policy, and democrati....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
