Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 16030
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM, J
KEPPEL PURAVANKARA DEVELOPMENT PRIVATE LIMITED – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KARNATAKA – Respondent
WRIT PETITION NO.13378 OF 2020
For the Appellants/Petitioners: JOSEPH ANTHONY
For the Respondents: SPOORTHY V., SINCHANA M.R.
The court upheld the quashing of unconstitutional levies in building bye-laws based on binding precedent, emphasizing adherence to prior judgments.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Bye-Laws - Quashing of Bye-Law 3.9 of the Bangalore Mahanagara Palike Building Bye-Laws, 2003 as unconstitutional and ultra-vires - Previous binding decisions have settled controversies against similar levies and bye-laws - Petition allowed as the issues are covered by authoritative pronouncements. (Paras 1, 2, 4)
(B) Ground Rent and Related Fees - The Co-ordinate Benches had earlier declared specific levies as ultra vires the Act, necessitating the relief sought in this petition.
Facts of the case:
The petitioner is challenging several levies and demands imposed by the respondents through Bye-Laws 3.9, along with various government circulars which have been previously quashed by the court.
Findings of Court:
The court refers to past decisions to substantiate its order to allow the petition and quash the impugned notices.
Issues: The main issues focus on the legality of various levies under the bye-laws in light of previous judgments.
Ratio Decidendi: The court finds no necessity for separate adjudication as the binding decisions provide sufficient grounds for the petition's acceptance.
Result: The writ petition is allowed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenges to specific building fees. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. precedents of related decisions established by the court. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. petition allowed based on previous rulings. (Para 5) |
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner is seeking for the following reliefs:
"a) Grant an order, direction or writ in the nature of Certiorari quashing Bye-Law 3.9 of the Bangalore Mahanagara Palike Building Bye- Laws, 2003 as unconstitutional, arbitrary, illegal and ultra-vires, in the interest of justice and equity;
b) Grant an order, direction or writ in the nature of Certiorari quashing the Notification issued by the Respondent No. 2 bearing No. UDD 3 TPP 2015 dated February 25, 2020 (Annexure-E) insofar as the inserted Rules 37-A and 37-C are concerned;
c) Grant an order, direction or writ in the nature of Certiorari quashing the circular dated August 14, 2020, bearing No.He.Ni.Ka.Pa.Ko/P.R/320/ 2020-21 issued by the Respondent No.4 (Annexure-F) in so far the Petitioners are concerned.
d) Grant an order, direction or writ in the nature of Certiorari quashing the Government Order bearing No. LD/300/LET/2006 dated January 18, 2007 (Annexure G) and the corrigendum order bearing No. LD/300/LET/2006, dated February 28, 2007 (Annexure H) issued by the Respondent No. 2 mandating upfront collection of labour welfare cess in so far the Petitioners are concerned e) Grant an order, direction or writ in the nature of Certiorari quashing the Circular bearing No. He. Ni.Na.Yo/JD(N)/DM3/PR/320/2015-16 dated September 04, 2015 (Annexure J) issued by the Respondent No.2 is so far as levy and collection of "Licence Fee';
f) Grant a Writ or order or direction, in the nature of Certiorari, quashing the Impugned Demand Notice bearing BBMP/Addl.Dir/JD SOUTH/LP/0001/20-21 dated November 11, 2020 by the Respondent No. 5 (Annexure A) as regards the demand made for:- • Ground Rent at Serial No. 1;
• GST at Serial No. 2;
• License Fee at Serial No. 3; • Scrutiny Fee at Serial No. 4;
• Betterment Fees for Building at Serial No. 6;
• Security Deposit at Serial No. 7;
• Service Charge on Labour Cess at Serial No.
10;
• Levy and Collection of 5% surcharge to be paid to BBMP at Serial No. 12;
• Levy and Collection of surcharge to be paid to BWSSB, BDA and KSCB at Serial No. 13;
and • Labour Cess g) Grant an order, direction or writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 BBMP to issue the sanction plan for construction of the Project in the Property, without insisting payment of Ground Rent, GST on Ground Rent, Betterment Charges for Building, Betterment Charges for Site, Security Deposit, License fee, Scrutiny fee, 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., and h) Grant such other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the above circumstances of the case, in the interests 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 and similarly, in M/s Sapthagiri Shelters and connected matters, the Co-ordinate Bench struck down the 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 Gro
