- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21710 WP No. 23921 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO.23921 OF 2019 (LB-BMP) BETWEEN: 1. SRI B R SHANKAR REDDY S/O LATE RAMAIAH REDDY AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS. 2. SMT B K GEETHA W/O SRI B R SHANKAR REDDY AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, 3. SMT B S ASHA D/O SRI B R SHANKAR REDDY AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, 4. SRI JAGADISH S/O SRI B R SHANKAR REDDY AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, 5. 5a. 5b. SRI B R KESHAVA REDDY S/O LATE SRI RAMAIAH REDDY AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, SRI VENKATESHA S/O SRI B R KESHAVA REDDY AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, SRI HARISHA S/O SRI B R KESHAVAREDDY AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, Digitally signed by H K HEMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21710 WP No. 23921 of 2019 6. 6a. 6b. 6c. SRI B.R. SAMPANGI REDDY S/O LATE RAMAIAH REDDY AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, SMT. PRABHAVATHI W/O SRI SAMPANGI REDDY AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, SRI KISHORE KUMAR S/O SRI SAMPANGI REDDY AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, SMT. THRIVENI D/O. SRI B.R. SAMPANGI REDDY AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, 7. SRI B R GOPALA REDDY S/O LATE RAMAIAH REDDY AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, 7a. SMT. NETHRAVATHI W/O SRI B.R. GOPALA REDDY AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, 7b. SRI JAGADISH S/O SRI B R GOPALA REDDY AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS 7c. MS ARCHANA D/O SRI B R GOPALA REDDY AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, 8. SRI B R CHANDRA REDDY S/O LATE RAMAIAH REDDY AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21710 WP No. 23921 of 2019 8a. SMT LAKSHMAMMA W/O SRI B R CHANDRA REDDY AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS 8b. MASTER RAMESH S/O SRI CHANDRA REDDY AGED ABOUT 16 YEARS 8c. MASTER DHANUSH S/O SRI B R CHANDRA REDDY AGED ABOUT 13 YEARS, THE OWNER AT SL.NOS.8B AND 8C BEING MINORS REPRESENTED BY THEIR NATURAL GUARDIAN AND FATHER SRI B R CHANDRA REDDY, THE OWNER AT SL.NO.8 9. SRI B R SHANKAR REDDY S/O SRI B R RAMAIAH REDDY AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, 9a. SMT SUVARNA W/O SRI B R RAMAIAH REDDY AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS 9b. MASTER YESHAVANTHA S/O SRI B R SHANKAR REDDY AGED ABOUT 16 YEARS, THE OWNER AT SL.NO.9B BEING MINOR REPRESENTED BY THEIR NATURAL GUARDIAN AND FATHER SRI B R CHANDRA REDDY THE OWNER AT SL.NO.9. 10. SRI ASHWATHA REDDY S/O SRI NARAYANA REDDY - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21710 WP No. 23921 of 2019 AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, 10a. SMT RATHNAMMA W/O SRI B N ASHWATHA REDDY AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, 10b. SMT RAVEENA D/O SRI B N ASHWATHA REDDY AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, 10c. SRI HARISH S/O SRI B N ASHWATHA REDDY AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, 11. SRI B N SAMPANGI REDDY S/O LATE NARAYANA REDDY AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, 11a. SMT SAVITHRAMMA W/O SRI B N SAMPANGI REDDY AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, 11b. SRI VENKATESH S/O SRI B N SAMPANGI REDDY AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, 12. SMT. ANURADHA W/O LATE B N MANJUNATHA REDDY AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, 12a. SMT RANJITHA D/O LATE B N MANJUNATHA REDDY AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21710 WP No. 23921 of 2019 12b. SMT ABHILASH D/O LATE B N MANJUNATHA REDDY AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, ALL ARE R/AT BALAGERE VILLAGE VARTHUR HOBLI BENGALURU EAST TALUK PETITIONER NO.1 TO 12B REP. BY THEIR POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER M/S. ECO LIFE DEVELOPERS A PARTNERSHIP FIRM HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.30, 1ST MAIN, RMS COLONY BHARAHALLI, K R PURAM BENGALURU-560 036 REP. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER SRI RAMESH S/O SRI PILLAPPA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS R/AT NO.30, 1ST CROSS RMS COLONY, BHATTARAHALLI K R PURAM, BENGALURU EAST-560 049. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. B S REDDY & SRI.M.V. VEDAMURTHY, ADVOCATES) AND: 1. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT VIKASA SOUDHA, 4TH FLOOR BENGALURU-560 001. 2. THE COMMISSIONER BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE N R SQUARE, BENGALURU-560 002. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21710 WP No. 23921 of 2019 3. JOINT DIRECTOR TOWN PLANNING (SOUTH) BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE ANNEXE BUILDING N R SQUARE, BENGALURU-560 002. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. BOPANNA B., AGA FOR R.1; SRI N.R. JAGADEESWARA, ADVOCATE FOR R.2 & R.3.) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE DEMAND NOTICE BEARING NO.BBMP/ADDL.DIR/JD NORTH/LP/0265/2015-16, DATED:18.05.2019 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3 SO FAR AS ITS RELATES TO DEMAND OF RS.10,29,342/- MADE TOWARDS GROUND RENTS, WHICH IS AT ANNEXURE-E BY ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE, ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21710 WP No. 23921 of 2019 ORAL ORDER The captioned petition is filed seeking for the following reliefs: "For the reasons stated above, the petitioner most respectfully pray that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to: 1. Issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the demand notice bearing No. BBMP/Addl.Dir/JDNORTH/LP /0265/2015-16, dated: 18.05.2019 issued by the Respondent No. 3 so far as its relates to demand of Rs.10,29,342/- made towards Ground Rents. which is at Annexure- E by allowing the writ petition in the ends of justice. 2. Issue a Writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to issue occupancy certificate as sought for the petitioners without demanding the amount towards the Ground Rent. 3. Grant such other and further reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstance of the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21710 WP No. 23921 of 2019 case in the interest of equity and justice. " 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.36017/2018 and connected matters. The Co-ordinate Bench, while deciding the issue, has held that the bye-laws under which Ground Rent, License Fee, Building License fee, Scrutiny fee are levied are ultra vires the Act. The Co-ordinate Bench also quashed the circular dated 04.09.2015 and Government circulars dated 27.01.2017 and 30.03.2017. Therefore, this Court deems it fit to cull out the operative portion of the order, which reads as under; "O R D E R (a) All the Writ Petitions are allowed. (b) The bye-laws under which Ground Rent, Licence Fee, Building Licence Fee, Scrutiny Fee, Security Deposit are all held ultravires the Act and are resultantly rendered unenforceable. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21710 WP No. 23921 of 2019 (c) The Circular bearing No.ºÉ¤£ÀAiÉÆÃ/eÉ.r(G)/rJªÀiï3/¦Dgï/320/2015-16 dated 04.09.2015 stands quashed. (d) The Circular bearing No.£ÀCE 36 ¨ÉªÀÄ¥Áæ 2016 (¨sÁUÀ) dated 27.01.2017 and the Circular bearing No. ºÉ¤£ÀAiÉÆÃ/¦Dgï/1533/2016-17 dated 30.03.2017 demanding Lake Rejuvenation Fee are quashed. (e) Imposition of labour cess under the Welfare Cess Act is upheld, but its demand for payment upfront in terms of Government Orders dated 18.01.2007 and 28.02.2007 stands quashed. (f) The State or the BBMP is 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. (g) Petitioners in all these petitions who have deposited certain amounts in terms of the interim order passed by this Court before this Court are entitled to refund of the amounts so deposited. (h) Insofar as refund in other cases who have paid to the Corporation under protest, they shall be entitled to such refund only if the same is not collected from the consumers of the apartments, businesses as the case would be. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21710 WP No. 23921 of 2019 (i) Insofar as all other payments made, they would all be at liberty to give representation to the BBMP and the BBMP would consider the refund of the amounts, in accordance with law and the findings of this Court. (j) If representations are made by the petitioners for refund, the BBMP shall pass appropriate orders within 12 weeks from the date of such representations. In view of disposal of the petitions, all pending Interlocutory Applications also stand disposed." 3. In the considered view of this Court, the issues raised in the present writ petition stand squarely covered by the authoritative pronouncement rendered by the Co- ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.36017/2018 and connected matters. The Co-ordinate Bench, after examining the statutory framework and the impugned levy mechanisms adopted by the BBMP, categorically held that the imposition of Ground Rent, Licence Fee, Building Licence Fee, Scrutiny Fee, and Security Deposit lacked statutory sanction and were ultra vires the Karnataka - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21710 WP No. 23921 of 2019 Municipal Corporations Act, 1976. The Co-ordinate Bench further held that Clause 3.8 of the BBMP Building Bye- laws, 2003, which provided for imposition of Ground Rent, was also devoid of legal authority and consequently struck it down. The Court also quashed the impugned Circular dated 04.09.2015 issued by respondent No.4, as well as the Government Orders dated 27.01.2017 and 30.03.2017, which had directed collection of such fees without statutory backing. With specific reference to labour welfare cess, the Co-ordinate Bench upheld the competence of the State to levy the cess under the Building and Other Construction Workers’ Welfare Cess Act, 1996, but set aside the directive mandating its upfront collection through Government Orders dated 18.01.2007 and 28.02.2007, thereby rendering the demand raised in anticipation of sanction of building plans unlawful. The Co-ordinate Bench also clarified that the only charging provision available under the Act was sub- section (20-b) of Section 423, which merely enabled - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21710 WP No. 23921 of 2019 collection of fees for services relating to burial grounds and crematoria, and could not be relied upon for the imposition of unrelated charges such as ground rent or scrutiny fee. In light of these clear and binding findings, the controversy raised in the present writ petition does not survive for independent adjudication, as the grievance of the petitioner is directly addressed and resolved by the said judgment. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the present writ petition deserves to be allowed by applying the ratio and operative portion of the judgment rendered in W.P.No.36017/2018 and connected matters. 4. In view of the above, this Court proceeds to pass the following; ORDER (i) The writ petition is allowed. - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21710 WP No. 23921 of 2019 (ii) The impugned demand notice dated 18.05.2019 issued by respondent No.3 as per Annexure-E is hereby set-aside. (iii) Respondent - BBMP is hereby directed to issue Occupancy Certificate in accordance with law in compliance of the construction strictly adhering to the approved building plan. (iv) Respondent- BBMP is hereby directed to forthwith process the petitioner's application seeking occupancy certificate, strictly in accordance with law. (v) It is made clear that the issuance of occupancy certificate shall not be withheld merely on the ground that the BBMP is contemplating to file an appeal against the reported judgment. - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21710 WP No. 23921 of 2019 (vi) If the occupancy certificate is issued, the same shall be subjected to the outcome of any appeal that may be filed by the BBMP against the judgment. Pending applications, if any, are also disposed off. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE VMB List No.: 2 Sl No.: 7