Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 18742
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM, J
M/S. SANDHYA RHINE RIVER PROJECTS PVT. LTD. – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KARNATAKA – Respondent
WRIT PETITION NO. 11804 OF 2021
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI. SOMASHEKHARA A.N
For the Respondents: SMT. SPOORTHY V, SMT. SINCHANA M.R
The court ruled municipal fees as ultra vires per established precedents, affirming right to refund and mandating compliance with relevant laws.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 226 and 227 - Writ petition filed for refund of amounts paid towards various fees and challenging the constitutionality of certain bye-laws and provisions of Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act - Court followed prior judgments ruling that impugned fees and bye-laws were ultra vires. (Paras 2-6)
(B) Mandamus - The Court must ensure that once a right has been established through binding precedents, relief should be granted without further adjudication unless substantial new arguments arise. (Paras 6-7)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner sought a refund for sums paid for various fees to municipal authorities, arguing inconsistencies with prior rulings establishing invalidity of these fees. The petition addressed challenges to the constitutionality of certain bye-laws and provisions under the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act.
Findings of Court:
The petition was allowed, invalidating the demand notice and directing the issuance of a building license. Existing laws and previous rulings were affirmed, mandating compliance from the municipal authority regarding funds paid.
Issues: The main issues pertained to the legitimacy of fees imposed by the municipal authorities and the relevant bye-laws, as challenged by the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized adherence to established precedents in dismissing the demand by the municipal authority for fees deemed ultra vires. The decision reinforced respect for binding judicial principles over arbitrary administrative actions.
Result: The writ petition is allowed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. previous judgments invalidated certain bye-laws. (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. court found no need for separate adjudication due to binding decisions. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 3. court mandates adherence to precedential rulings. (Para 7) |
ORAL ORDER
The caption petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:
“WHEREFORE, the Petitioner respectfully prays that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to:
1) issue a writ of mandamus or similar writ or order or direction to the Respondent No. 3 to refund the amount of Rs. 16,03,03,000/- (Rupees Sixteen Crores Three Lakhs Three Thousand only) paid by the Petitioner herein vide Payment Receipt bearing No.BBMP/11641/CH-20-21 dated 21/09/2020 (Annexure F) and an amount of Rs.3,38,76,000/- (Rupees Three Crores Thirty Eight Lakhs Seventy Six Thousand only) paid by the Petitioner towards Labour Cess vide Acknowledgement bearing No.HO/8675/2020 dated 10/09/2020 (Annexure-G) in response to the Demand Notice bearing No.BBMP/Addl.Dir/JDNORTH/0096/19-20 dated 07/09/2020 (Annexure E) towards Scrutiny Fees, License Fees, Ground Rent, GST on Ground Rent, Betterment Fee, Security Deposit, Compound Wall, Administrative Charges on Labour Cess and towards Labour Cess;
ii) 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, unconstitutional, arbitrary, illegal and 2003 as ultravires;
iii) 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 1st Respondent (Annexure - K) in so far as 18-A(i) and (iv) of Karnataka Act No.23 of 2004 is concerned;
iv) 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 (Annexure-L) in so far as the amended Rule
37-A and Rule 37-C are concerned;
v) issue any other appropriate writ or order or direction as deemed fit in the circumstances of the case, in the interest 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.
3. 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.
4. 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 Ground Rent, as invalid.
5. The issues raised in the present writ petition are squarely covered by the above binding decisions, wherein the relevant bye-laws and government circulars have been set aside.
6. In light of the authoritative pronouncements, the present petition does not warrant separate adjudication and is liable to be allowed in terms of the operative directions issued in the aforesaid writ petitions.
7. Accordingly, this Court proceeds to pass the following:
ORDER
i. The writ petition is allowed ii. The impugned demand notice dated
07.09.2020 issued by respondent No.3 as per Annexure-E is hereby set-aside.
iii. Respondent - BBMP is hereby directed to issue fresh/modified plan as the case may be.
iv. Respondent - BBMP is directed to forthwith process the petitioner’s application seeking building
