Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 16285
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM, J
SMT. SARITA BHANSALI W/O RAJENDRA BHANSALI, SRI. RAJENDRA BHANSALI – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY ITS SECRETARY, URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT – Respondent
WRIT PETITION NO. 35443 OF 2024|WRIT PETITION NO. 31213 OF 2024
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI. SRINIVAS V.
For the Respondents: SRI. PAWAN KUMAR, SRI. BATHEGOWDA.K.V, SRI.BOPANNA.B, SRI.K.B.MONESH KUMAR
The court ruled that demand notices for fees related to smaller plots are unlawful, reaffirming that previously collected fees cannot be recharged for subsequent development plans.
Headnote:(A) Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961 - Section 18-A - Karnataka Municipal Corporations and Certain Other Law (Amendment) Act, 2021 and 2023 - Demand notices for fees and penalties quashed - The court quashed the demand notices issued to the petitioners, declaring that fees cannot be levied on smaller plots and previous fees collected cannot be recharged for subsequent plans. (Paras 2-6)
(B) Judicial Precedent - Authority of Co-ordinate Bench - The court followed a previous ruling by a co-ordinate bench which set aside the amendment acts and clarified the applicability of planning fees. (Paras 3-5)
Facts of the case:
Petitioners challenged demand notices for various fees and penalties issued by the municipal authority, claiming they were unconstitutional and arbitrary.
Findings of Court:
The court found the demand notices invalid and directed the municipal authorities to process the petitioners' applications for building licenses in accordance with the law.
Issues: Whether the demand notices for fees were lawful and the validity of the bye-law under which they were issued.
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that the provisions of the amendment acts were not applicable to smaller plots and that previously collected fees could not be imposed again.
Result: Writ petitions allowed; demand notices quashed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. court quashes certain amendments and fees. (Para 2 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. court's analysis on fee and legality. (Para 3 , 6) |
| 3. writ petitions allowed; demand notices set aside. (Para 7) |
ORAL ORDER
Petitioners in W.P.No.35443/2024 have sought the following reliefs:
a) Issue a writ of certiorari or similar writ or order or direction to quash the demand notice No.BBMP/Addl.Com/RJH/0617/24-25 in Project No PRJ/3022/24-25 dated 25/11/2024 at Annexure E & E1 issued by the respondent No.3 in so far as the demand of Rs.97,584/- towards Scrutiny Fee, License Fee of Rs 19,51,690/-, security deposit of Rs.13,94,064, Ground Rent & GST of Rs 18,09,495, Lake Rejuvenation Fee of Rs 2,02,292 Fee U/s 18(1) of KTCP (Betterment Levy) for Building Rs 13,94,064, Fee U/s 18(1) of KTCP (Betterment Levy) For Site 16,99,253 Water Supply Cess of Rs 3,09,332, Ring Road Surcharge of 3,09,332 and Cess for Improvement of Slums 1,54,666, MRTS Surcharge of Rs 15,46,658 & Penalty of 23,00,205, 5% Administrative Charge to BBMP on Cess and Surcharge 1,15,999/-Labour Cess amount of Rs 25,11,825-00.
b) Issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction declaring that Bye-law No.3.9 in the Bangalore Mahanagara Palike Building Bye-laws, 2003 framed under the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act as unconstitutional, arbitrary, illegal and ultravires;
c) Issue writ of mandamus or similar writ or order or direction directing the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to issue building plan and license pursuant to the demand notice No.BBMP/Addl.Com/RJH/0617/24-25 in Project No PRJ/3022/24-25 dated 25/11/2024 at Annexure E & E1 issued by the respondent No.3 without insisting for payment of amount mentioned above.
d) Issue any other appropriate writ or order or direction deemed fit in the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity. Petitioner in W.P.No.31213/2024 has sought the following reliefs:
a) Issue a writ of certiorari or similar writ or order or direction to quash the demand notice No.BBMP/Addl.Com/MDP/0710/24-25 dated 13/11/2024 at Annexure C issued by the respondent No.3 in so far as the demand of Rs.39,361/- towards Scrutiny Fee, Rs 7,87,218 towards License Fee, Rs.6,18,529/- towards Ground Rent & GST, Rs.1,75,302/- towards Security Deposit, Rs 86,272 toward Lake Rejuvenation, Fee U/s 18(1) of the KTCP Act (Building) Rs 1,75,302 & Site Rs 27,67,261, Towards Ring Road Surcharge Rs 2,76,726 and Towards Water Supply Cess is Rs 2,76,726, Cess For Improvement of Slums Rs 1,38,363 & MRTS surcharge of Rs 13,83,630.
b) Issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction declaring that Bye-law No.3.9 in the Bangalore Mahanagara Palike Building Bye-laws, 2003 framed under the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act as unconstitutional, arbitrary, illegal and ultravires;
c) Issue writ of mandamus or similar writ or order or direction directing the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to issue building plan and license pursuant to the demand notice No.BBMP/Addl.Com/MDP/0710/24-25 dated 13/11/2024 at Annexure C issued by the respondent No.3 without insisting for payment of amount mentioned above.
d) Issue any other appropriate writ or order or direction deemed fit in the 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, 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, 20
