- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21882 WP No. 11346 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 11346 OF 2020 (LB-BMP) BETWEEN: 1. 2. M/S KRS EVERGREEN STRUCTURES A REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT SY.NO. 54, KENCHENAHALLI VILLAGE, KENGERI HOBLI BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK, BENGALURU REP. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNERS. SRI.Y. HANUMANTH REDDY, S/O SRI.Y. ANANDA REDDY. SRI. R.S. MADHU KUMAR, S/O SRI. R. SHANKARAPPA. …PETITIONER (BY SMT. M. MANJULA.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS ADDL. CHIEF SECRETARY URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU- 560 001. 2. THE COMMISSIONER BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGAR PALIKE, NR SQUARE BENGALURU- 560 002 3. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING Digitally signed by NAGARAJA B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21882 WP No. 11346 of 2020 RAJRAJESHWARINAGAR DIVISON, BRUAHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGAR PALIKE, RAJRAJESHWARINAGAR BENGALURU- 560 098. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.BOPANNA.B .,AGA FOR R-1; SRI.ARAVIND M.NEGLUR., ADVOCATE FOR R-2 & R-3) THIS W.P. IS FILED UDNER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE DEMAND NOTICE DTD.10.7.2020 ISSUED BY R-3 SO FAR AS IT DIRECTS THE PETITIONER HEREIN TO DEPOSIT SCRUTINY FEE OF RS.1,88,359/- (RUPEES ONE LAKH EIGHTY EIGHT THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED AND FIFTY NINE ONLY) LICENSE FEE OF RS.17,68,856/- (RUPEES SEVENTEEN LAKH SIXTY EIGHT THOUSAND EIGHT HUNDRED FIFTY SIX ONLY) AND GROUND RENT OF RS.10,43,625/- (RUPEES TEN LAKH FORTY THREE THOUSAND HUNDRED SIX HUNDRED TWENTY FIVE ONLY) INCLUSIVE OF GST CALCULAT4ED AT 18 PERCENT. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL ORDER The petitioners are seeking for the following reliefs: a) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ quashing the Demand Notice No.BBMP/Addl.Dir/JD SOUTH/0048/19-20, dated: 10/07/2020 issued by Respondent No.3 so far as it directs the Petitioner herein to deposit Scrutiny Fee of Rs.1,88,359/- (Rupees One Lakh Eighty Eight Thousand Three Hundred and Fifty Nine Only), License Fee of - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21882 WP No. 11346 of 2020 Rs.17,68,856/- (Rupees Seventeen Lakh Sixty Eight Thousand Eight Hundred Fifty Six Only) and Ground Rent of Rs.10.43,625/- (Rupees Ten Lakh Forty Three Thousand Six Hundred Six Hundred Twenty Five Only) inclusive of GST calculated at 18%. b) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ declaring that the action of Respondent No.3 in insisting on payment of Scrutiny Fee of Rs. 1,88,359/- (Rupees One Lakh Eighty Eight Thousand Three Hundred and Fifty Nine Only), License Fee of Rs. 17,68,856/- (Rupees Seventeen Lakh Sixty Eight Thousand Eight Hundred Fifty Six Only) and Ground Rent of Rs.10,43,625/- (Rupees Ten Lakh Forty Three Thousand Six Hundred Twenty Five Only) inclusive of GST calculated at 18%, as highly arbitrary and illegal. c) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ setting aside the circular no HE NI N YO/J.D.(U)/DM3/PR/320/2015-16 dated 04.09.2015 issued by Respondent No.2 for calculating the ground rent (ANNEXURE-A) d) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ directing Responder No.3 to issue plan sanction without insisting on the payment of the Ground Rent by the petitioner. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21882 WP No. 11346 of 2020 e) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ declaring the ground rent levied on the petitioner for obtaining plan sanction is bad in law, since the petitioner is not using the public land/property for stocking of building materials for construction purpose. f) Grant such other relief that this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in facts and circumstances of the above case. 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. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21882 WP No. 11346 of 2020 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. 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. 368 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. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21882 WP No. 11346 of 2020 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. 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 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21882 WP No. 11346 of 2020 the imposition of Ground Rent, Licence Fee, Building Licence Fee, Scrutiny Fee, and Security Deposit lacked statutory sanction and were ultra vires the Karnataka 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 - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21882 WP No. 11346 of 2020 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 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; - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21882 WP No. 11346 of 2020 ORDER i) The writ petition is allowed. ii) The impugned demand notice dated 10.07.2020 issued by respondent No.3 as per Annexure-A is hereby set-aside. iii) Respondent- BBMP is hereby directed to issue fresh/modified plan as the case may be. iv) Respondent- BBMP is hereby directed to forthwith process the petitioner's application seeking building license and sanction of the building plan, strictly in accordance with law. v) It is made clear that the issuance of the building license and approval plan shall not be withheld merely on the ground that the BBMP is contemplating to file an appeal against the reported judgment. vi) If the building license and sanction plan are issued, the same shall be subjected to the outcome of any appeal that may - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21882 WP No. 11346 of 2020 be filed by the BBMP against the judgment. Pending applications, if any, are also disposed off. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE GSS List No.: 2 Sl No.: 15