Full Judgment Text
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 04 DAY OF AUGUST, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA
WRIT PETITION No.4601/2020 (LB – BMP)
C/W.
WRIT PETITION No.55442/2015 (LB – BMP)
WRIT PETITION No.55944/2015 (LB – BMP)
WRIT PETITION No.55945/2015 (LB – BMP)
WRIT PETITION No.57443/2015 (LB – BMP)
WRIT PETITION No.57920/2015 (LB – BMP)
WRIT PETITION No.7538/2016 (LB – BMP)
WRIT PETITION No.10164/2016 (LB – BMP)
WRIT PETITION No.12535/2016 (LB – BMP)
WRIT PETITION No.52014/2016 (LB – BMP)
WRIT PETITION No.8204/2017 (LB – BMP)
WRIT PETITION No.11065/2017 (LB – BMP)
WRIT PETITION No.12656/2017 (LB – BMP)
WRIT PETITION No.13588/2017 (LB – BMP)
WRIT PETITION No.14530/2017 (LB – BMP)
WRIT PETITION No.16461/2017 (LB – BMP)
WRIT PETITION No.17164/2017 (LB – BMP)
WRIT PETITION No.17436/2017 (LB – BMP)
WRIT PETITION No.37473/2017 (LB – BMP)
WRIT PETITION No.38743/2017 (LB – BMP)
WRIT PETITION No.47077/2017 (LB – BMP)
WRIT PETITION No.58170/2017 (LB – BMP)
WRIT PETITION No.6381/2018 (LB – BMP)
WRIT PETITION No.9028/2018 (LB – BMP)
WRIT PETITION No.9581/2018 (LB – BMP)
WRIT PETITION No.11868/2018 (LB – BMP)
WRIT PETITION No.12522/2018 (LB – BMP)
WRIT PETITION No.13143/2018 (LB – BMP)
WRIT PETITION No.13465/2018 (LB – BMP)
R
2
WRIT PETITION No.14265/2018 (LB – BMP)
WRIT PETITION No.14307/2018 (LB – BMP)
WRIT PETITION No.16282/2018 (LB – BMP)
WRIT PETITION No.16990/2018 (LB – BMP)
WRIT PETITION No.17048/2018 (LB – BMP)
WRIT PETITION No.17262/2018 (LB – BMP)
WRIT PETITION No.17350/2018 (LB – BMP)
WRIT PETITION No.17352/2018 (LB – BMP)
WRIT PETITION No.17356/2018 (LB – BMP)
WRIT PETITION No.18297/2018 (LB – BMP)
WRIT PETITION No.18530/2018 (LB – BMP)
WRIT PETITION No.23726/2018 (LB – TAX)
WRIT PETITION No.25545/2018 (LB – BMP)
WRIT PETITION No.25850/2018 (LB – BMP)
WRIT PETITION No.27638/2018 (LB – BMP)
WRIT PETITION No.28692/2018 (LB – BMP)
WRIT PETITION No.29867/2018 (LB – BMP)
WRIT PETITION No.30066/2018 (LB – BMP)
WRIT PETITION No.30415/2018 (LB – BMP)
WRIT PETITION No.30867/2018 (LB – BMP)
WRIT PETITION No.33013/2018 (LB – BMP)
WRIT PETITION No.33406/2018 (LB – BMP)
WRIT PETITION No.34265/2018 (LB – BMP)
WRIT PETITION No.35728/2018 (LB – BMP)
WRIT PETITION No.36017/2018 (LB – BMP)
WRIT PETITION No.41121/2018 (LB – BMP)
WRIT PETITION No.41409/2018 (LB – BMP)
WRIT PETITION No.42748/2018 (LB – BMP)
WRIT PETITION No.45817/2018 (LB – BMP)
WRIT PETITION No.52417/2018 (LB – BMP)
WRIT PETITION No.53220/2018 (LB – BMP)
WRIT PETITION No.57548/2018 (LB – BMP)
WRIT PETITION No.57893/2018 (LB – BMP)
WRIT PETITION No.15/2019 (LB – BMP)
WRIT PETITION No.59/2019 (LB – BMP)
WRIT PETITION No.529/2019 (LB – BMP)
WRIT PETITION No.1281/2019 (LB – BMP)
WRIT PETITION No.1705/2019 (LB – BMP)
WRIT PETITION No.7040/2019 (LB – BMP)
WRIT PETITION No.9699/2019 (LB – BMP)
3
WRIT PETITION No.9940/2019 (L – RES)
WRIT PETITION No.11063/2019 (LB – BMP)
WRIT PETITION No.11386/2019 (LB – BMP)
WRIT PETITION No.13495/2019 (LB – BMP)
WRIT PETITION No.14266/2019 (LB – BMP)
WRIT PETITION No.18873/2019 (LB – BMP)
WRIT PETITION No.19335/2019 (LB – BMP)
WRIT PETITION No.19746/2019 (LB – BMP)
WRIT PETITION No.21988/2019 (LB – BMP)
WRIT PETITION No.22316/2019 (LB – BMP)
WRIT PETITION No.22389/2019 (LB – BMP)
WRIT PETITION No.22621/2019 (LB – BMP)
WRIT PETITION No.23595/2019 (LB – BMP)
WRIT PETITION No.23888/2019 (LB – BMP)
WRIT PETITION No.24906/2019 (LB – BMP)
WRIT PETITION No.25145/2019 (LB – RES)
WRIT PETITION No.25167/2019 (LB – BMP)
WRIT PETITION No.25459/2019 (LB – BMP)
WRIT PETITION No.25462/2019 (LB – BMP)
WRIT PETITION No.25496/2019 (LB – BMP)
WRIT PETITION No.27756/2019 (LB – BMP)
WRIT PETITION No.28990/2019 (LB – BMP)
WRIT PETITION No.28992/2019 (LB – BMP)
WRIT PETITION No.29271/2019 (LB – BMP)
WRIT PETITION No.29296/2019 (LB – BMP)
WRIT PETITION No.29578/2019 (LB – BMP)
WRIT PETITION No.30168/2019 (LB – BMP)
WRIT PETITION No.38063/2019 (LB – BMP)
WRIT PETITION No.38832/2019 (LB – BMP)
WRIT PETITION No.39208/2019 (LB – BMP)
WRIT PETITION No.41698/2019 (LB – BMP)
WRIT PETITION No.42396/2019 (LB – BMP)
WRIT PETITION No.44811/2019 (LB – BMP)
WRIT PETITION No.46939/2019 (LB – BMP)
WRIT PETITION No.50186/2019 (LB – BMP)
WRIT PETITION No.50280/2019 (LB – BMP)
WRIT PETITION No.50442/2019 (LB – BMP)
WRIT PETITION No.50652/2019 (LB – BMP)
WRIT PETITION No.51603/2019 (LB – BMP)
WRIT PETITION No.51825/2019 (LB – BMP)
4
WRIT PETITION No.52084/2019 (LB – BMP)
WRIT PETITION No.52669/2019 (LB – BMP)
WRIT PETITION No.52682/2019 (LB – BMP)
WRIT PETITION No.135/2020 (LB – BMP)
WRIT PETITION No.388/2020 (LB – BMP)
WRIT PETITION No.3771/2020 (LB – BMP)
WRIT PETITION No.4595/2020 (LB – BMP)
WRIT PETITION No.5087/2020 (LB – BMP)
WRIT PETITION No.5758/2020 (LB – BMP)
WRIT PETITION No.6413/2020 (LB – BMP)
WRIT PETITION No.6633/2020 (LB – BMP)
WRIT PETITION No.7454/2020 (LB – BMP)
WRIT PETITION No.7895/2020 (LB – BMP)
WRIT PETITION No.7949/2020 (LB – BMP)
WRIT PETITION No.7973/2020 (LB – BMP)
WRIT PETITION No.8026/2020 (LB – BMP)
WRIT PETITION No.8133/2020 (LB – BMP)
WRIT PETITION No.8538/2020 (LB – BMP)
WRIT PETITION No.8540/2020 (LB – BMP)
WRIT PETITION No.8697/2020 (LB – BMP)
WRIT PETITION No.8831/2020 (LB – BMP)
WRIT PETITION No.8849/2020 (LB – BMP)
WRIT PETITION No.8984/2020 (LB – BMP)
WRIT PETITION No.8993/2020 (LB – BMP)
WRIT PETITION No.9421/2020 (LB – BMP)
WRIT PETITION No.11152/2020 (LB – BMP)
WRIT PETITION No.11163/2020 (LB – BMP)
WRIT PETITION No.11307/2020 (LB – BMP)
WRIT PETITION No.12570/2020 (LB – BMP)
WRIT PETITION No.12576/2020 (LB – BMP)
WRIT PETITION No.13116/2020 (LB – BMP)
5
IN WRIT PETITION No.4601/2020
BETWEEN
1. MR. SUNDERAM SHETTY
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS
SON OF MR.K.MANJAYYA SHETTY.
2. MR.RAHUL NARAYAN SHETTY
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
SON OF MR PRASANNA KUMAR SHETTY
BOTH ARE RESIDING AT NO.19
VICTORIA ROAD,
BENGALURU – 560 047.
3. SMT. NEELAMMA
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
WIFE OF LATE
SRI K.G.NARASIMHA REDDY.
4. SRI K.N.VENKATESHA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
SON OF LATE SRI K.G.NARASIMHA REDDY
BOTH ARE RESIDING AT
TH
NO.1865, 25 ‘A’ CROSS ROAD,
RD
23 MAIN ROAD, SECTOR-II
H.S.R. LAYOUT
BENGALURU – 560 102.
ALL ARE REPRESENTED BY THEIR GPA HOLDER
M/S BREN CORPORATION
(FORMERLY KNOWN AS M/S SJR ENTERPRISES)
A PROPRIETARY CONCERN
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT PLOT NO.61,
RD
3 FLOOR, BALAVANA,
TH
5 ‘A’ BLOCK, KORAMANGALA,
KORAMANGALA
6
BENGALURU -560 095
REPRESENTED BY ITS SOLE PROPRIETOR
MR J.BOOPESH REDDY.
5. MR.J.BOOPESH REDDY
AGE 47 YEARS
S/O S.JAYARAMA REDDY,
RD
NO.61, 3 FLOOR
TH
5 ‘A’ BLOCK, KORAMANGALA,
BENGALURU – 560 095.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI VIVEKANANDA T.P., ADVOCATE)
AND
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,
TH
4 FLOOR, VIKAS SOUDHA,
DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU – 560 001.
2. THE BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE
N R SQUARE, BENGALURU – 560 002
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER.
3. THE JOINT DIRECTOR
TOWN PLANNING (SOUTH)
BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE
N.R.SQUARE, BENGALURU – 560 002.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI R.SRINIVAS GOWDA, AGA FOR R1
SRI SREENIDHI V., AND SMT.SINCHANA M.R.,
ADVOCATES FOR R2 AND R3 (PHYSICAL HEARING))
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH
THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 18.02.2020 AT ANNX-G
ISSUED BY THE R-3 ONLY IN SO FAR AS THE DEMAND OF
7
RS.77,73,818/- TOWARDS THE GST AT 18 PERCENT ON
THE GROUND RENT AT RS.13,99,287/- SCRUTINY FEE
AND ETC.,
IN WRIT PETITION No.55442/2015
BETWEEN
SOBHA LIMITED
(FORMERLY SOBHA DEVELOPERS LIMITED)
A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER
THE COMPANIES ACT 1956
AND HAVING ITS REGISTERED AND
CORPORATE OFFICE AT
SOBHA, SARJAPUR MARTHAHALLI
OUTER RING ROAD (ORR), DEVERABEESANAHALLI
BELLANDUR POST, BENGALURU – 560 103
REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY
MRS V PADMAVATHI
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI KEMPEGOWDA FOR M/S. ANUP S. SHAH
LAW FIRM, ADVOCATES)
AND
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
4TH FLOOR VIKAS SOUDHA
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU - 560001
2. BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE
N R SQUARE, BENGALURU - 560002
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER
3. JOINT DIRECTOR
TOWN PLANNING (SOUTH)
8
BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE
N R SQUARE, BENGALURU - 560002
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI R.SRINIVAS GOWDA, AGA FOR R1
SRI SREENIDHI V., AND SMT.SINCHANA M.R.,
ADVOCATES FOR R2 AND R3 (PHYSICAL HEARING))
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 05.11.2015 AT
ANNEXURE - A ISSUED BY R- 3; DIRECT THE
RESPONDENTS TO ISSUE OCCUPANCY CERTIFICATE AS
SOUGHT FOR BY PETITIONER VIDE LETTER DTD.3.8.2015
AT ANNEX-AA WITHOUT INSISTING FOR GROUND RENT
ETC.
IN WRIT PETITION No.55944/2015
BETWEEN
M/S SOBHA HIGHRISE VENTURES PRIVATE LIMITED
A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER
THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956
AND HAVING ITS OFFICE AT,
SARJAPUR-MARTHAHALLI OUTER RING ROAD (ORR),
DEVARABEESANAHALLI, BELLANDUR POST,
BENGALURU – 560 103
REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY
MRS V PADMAVATHI
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI KEMPEGOWDA FOR M/S. ANUP S. SHAH LAW
FIRM, ADVOCATES)
AND
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
4TH FLOOR, VIKASA SOUDHA,
AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU - 560001
9
2. BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE
N R SQUARE, BENGALURU - 560002
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER
3. JOINT DIRECTOR
TOWN PLANNING (NORTH)
BRUHAT BANGALORE
MAHANAGARA PALIKE
N R SQUARE, BENGALURU - 560002
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI R.SRINIVAS GOWDA, AGA FOR R1
SRI SREENIDHI V., AND SMT.SINCHANA M.R.,
ADVOCATES FOR R2 AND R3 (PHYSICAL HEARING))
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE DEMAND NOTICE DTD:4.11.2015
(ANNEXURE-A) ISSUED BY R-3 TO THE EXTENT OF
RS.25,91,362/- CLAIMED TOWARDS GROUND RENT ETC.
IN WRIT PETITION No.55945/2015
BETWEEN
M/S. SOBHA LIMITED
(FORMERLY SOBHA DEVELOPERS LIMITED)
A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER
THE COMPANIES ACT,1956
AND HAVING ITS REGISTERED AND
CORPORATE OFFICE AT,
"SOBHA" SARJAPUR-MARTHAHALLI
OUTER RING ROAD (ORR)
DEVERABEESANAHALLI,
BELLANDUR POST,
BENGALURU - 560 103
REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY,
MRS V. PADMAVATHI
... PETITIONER
10
(BY SRI KEMPEGOWDA FOR M/S. ANUP S. SHAH LAW
FIRM, ADVOCATES)
AND
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,
4TH FLOOR, VIKAS SOUDHA,
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU - 560 001
2. BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE
N.R.SQUARE, BENGALURU - 560 002
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER
3. JOINT DIRECTOR
TOWN PLANNING (NORTH)
BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
N.R.SQUARE, BENGALURU - 560 002
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI R.SRINIVAS GOWDA, AGA FOR R1
SRI SREENIDHI V., AND SMT.SINCHANA M.R.,
ADVOCATES FOR R2 AND R3 (PHYSICAL HEARING))
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE DEMAND NOTICE DTD:04.11.2015
(ANENXURE-A) ISSUED BY R-3 TO THE EXTENT OF
RS.17,67,560/- CLAIMED TOWARDS GROUND RENT ETC.
IN WRIT PETITION No.57443/2015
BETWEEN
SOBHA LIMITED
(FORMERLY SOBHA DEVELOPERS LIMITED)
A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER,
11
THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 AND HAVING OFFICE AT,
SARJAPUR - MARATHAHALLI OUTER RING ROAD (ORR),
DEVARABEESANAHALLI, BELLANDUR POST,
BENGALURU - 560 103.
REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY,
MRS. V.PADMAVATHI.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI KEMPEGOWDA FOR M/S. ANUP S. SHAH LAW
FIRM, ADVOCATES)
AND
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,
4TH FLOOR, VIKAS SOUDHA,
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE
N.R.SQUARE, BENGALURU - 560 002.
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER.
3. JOINT DIRECTOR
TOWN PLANNING (NORTH)
BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE
N.R.SQUARE, BENGALURU - 560 002.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI R.SRINIVAS GOWDA, AGA FOR R1
SRI SREENIDHI V., AND SMT.SINCHANA M.R.,
ADVOCATES FOR R2 AND R3 (PHYSICAL HEARING))
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE IMPUGNED CIRCULAR DTD: 22.8.2014
(ANNEXURE-B) ISSUED BY R-2; QUASH THE DEMAND
NOTICE DTD: 4.11.2015 (ANNEXURE-A) ISSUED BY R-3 TO
THE EXTENT OF DEMAND RAISED FOR RS.8,68,087/-
TOWARDS GROUND RENT AND RS.2,81,02,500/-
12
TOWARDS MARKET VALUE OF PARK AND OPEN SPACE
ETC.
IN WRIT PETITION No.57920/2015
BETWEEN
1. SMT. LATHA K
W/O LATE T K RAMESH
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
2. SRI RONAK R
S/O LATE T K RAMESH
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS,
3. SRI R DHARSHAN
S/O LATE T K RAMESH
AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS,
ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO.899/90,
MARUTHI NILAYA,
MARUTHINAGAR, KOGILU ROAD
YELAHANKA ROAD, BENGALURU - 560064
4. SRI Y A MOHAN
S/O SRI ANJINAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.469,
MAHESHWARI TEMPLE STREET,
YELAHANKA OLD TOWN,
BENGALURU – 560 064
PETITIONER NOS.1 TO 4 ARE REPRESENTED
BY THEIR POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER:-
SOBHA LIMITED
(FORMERLY SOBHA DEVELOPERS LIMITED)
A COMPANY INCORPORATED LIMITED)
A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER,
THE COMPANIES ACT 1956
13
AND HAVING OFFICE AT
SARJAPUR-MARTHAHALLI
OUTER RING ROAD (ORR),
DEVARABEESANAHALLI, BELLANDUR POST,
BENGALURU - 560103
REPRESETNED BY ITS AUTHORISRED SIGNATORY
MRS V PADMAVATHI
5. SOBHA LIMITED
(FORMERLY SOBHA DEVELOPERS LIMITED)
A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER
THE COMPANIES ACT 1956
AND HAVING OFFICE AT
SARJAPUR-MARTHAHALLI
OUTER RING ROAD (ORR),
DEVARABEESANAHALLI, BELLANDUR POST,
BENGALURU - 560103
REPRESETNED BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY
MRS V PADMAVATHI
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI KEMPEGOWDA FOR M/S. ANUP S. SHAH LAW
FIRM, ADVOCATES)
AND
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
4TH FLOOR, VIKAS SOUDHA,
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU - 560001
2. BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE
N R SQUARE, BENGALURU - 560002
REPRESETNED BY ITS COMMISSIONER
3. JOINT DIRECTOR
TOWN PLANNING (NORTH)
BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE
14
ANNEXE BUILDING, N R SQUARE,
BENGALURU - 560002
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI R.SRINIVAS GOWDA, AGA FOR R1
SRI SREENIDHI V., AND SMT.SINCHANA M.R.,
ADVOCATES FOR R2 AND R3 (PHYSICAL HEARING))
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE IMPUGNED CIRCULAR DT.22.8.2014 (ANNX-B)
ISSUED BY R-2; QUASH THE DEMAND NOTICE
DT.21.11.2015 (ANNX-A) ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT -
BBMP, SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO DEMAND OF
RS.30,89,271/- MADE TOWARDS FOR GROUND RENT AND
RS.3,56,75,200/- MADE TOWARDS PARK AND OPEN
SPACE CHARGES ETC.
IN WRIT PETITION No.7538/2016
BETWEEN
M/S BHARTIYA CITY DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED
(ERSTWHILE, ZIGMA LAND DEVELOPERS PVT LTD)
A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER
THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT:
100/1, RICHMOND ROAD
BANGALORE-560025
REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY
MR SHAMA SUNDER R J
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI KEMPEGOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI ANUP S SHAH LAW FIRM, ADVOCATES)
AND
1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA
15
REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
4TH FLOOR, VIKAS SOUDHA
AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BANGALORE-560001
2. BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE
N R SQUARE
BANGALORE-560002
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER
3 . JOINT DIRECTOR
TOWN PLANNING(NORTH)
BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE
N R SQUARE
BANGALORE-560002
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI R SRINIVAS GOWDA, AGA FOR R1,
SRI SREENIDHI V & SMT SINCHANA M.R., ADVOCATES
FOR R2 & R3 (PHYSICAL HEARING))
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE DEMAND NOTICE DT.22.1.2016 (ANNX-A)
ISSUED BY R-3 SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO CLAIM MADE
FOR PAYMENT OF GROUD RENT IS CONCERNED.
IN WRIT PETITION No.10164/2016
BETWEEN
SOBHA LIMITED
(FORMERLY SOBHA DEVELOPERS LIMITED)
A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER,
THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956
AND HAVING ITS OFFICE AT,
SARJAPUR-MARTHAHALLI
16
OUTER RING ROAD (ORR)
DEVARABESANAHALLI,
BELLANDUR POST,
BENGALURU – 560 103
REPRESENTED BY ITS
AUTHORISED SIGNATORY
MRS. V.PADMAVATHI.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI SANJAY NAIR, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,
TH
4 FLOOR, VIKAS SOUDHA,
AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU – 560 001.
2. BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE
N.R.SQUARE, BENGALURU – 560 002
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER.
3. JOINT DIRECTOR
TOWN PLANNING (SOUTH)
BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
ANNEXE BUILDING, N.R.SQUARE,
BENGALURU – 560 002.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI R. SRINIVAS GOWDA, AGA. FOR R1
SRI SREENIDHI V. AND SMT.SINCHANA M.R.,
ADVOCATES FOR R2 AND R3 (PHYSICAL HEARING))
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE IMPUGNED CIRCULAR DTD: 22.8.2014
(ANNEXURE-B) ISSUED BY THE R-2; QUASH THE DEMAND
NOTICE DTD: 4.2.2016 (ANNEXURE-A) ISSUED BY THE R-3
17
TO THE EXTENT OF DEMAND RAISED FOR RS.25,70,015/-
TOWARDS GROUND RENT AND RS.3,84,36,000/-
TOWARDS 10% OF MARKET VALUE OF SCHEDULE
PROPERTY TOWARDS PARKS AND OPEN SPACES AND
ETC.
IN WRIT PETITION No.12535/2016
BETWEEN
SMT.H.G.SHEELA
W/O R. NAGARAJ
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
ST ND
NO.80, 1 CROSS, 2 MAIN,
DEFENCE COLONY,
BENGALURU – 560 038.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI SRINIVASA MURTHY L.K., ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS
ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY,
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,
VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU – 560 001.
2. THE COMMISIONER
BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
N.R.SQUARE, BENGALURU – 560 002.
3. THE JOINT DIRECTOR
TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (NORTH),
BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
N.R.SQUARE, BENGALURU – 560 002.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI R.SRINIVAS GOWDA, AGA FOR R1;
SRI SREENIDHI V AND SMT.SINCHANA M.R.,
ADVOCATES FOR R2 AND R3(PHYSICAL HEARING))
18
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH
THE CIRCULAR ISSUED BY R-2 COMMISSIONER DATED
04.09.2015 LEVYING FEES FOR ISSUE OF I.T/ B.T.
BUILDING LICENSE / SANCTION PLAN AT ANNEX-H AND
THE DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED BY R-2 COMMISSIONER
DATED 18.02.2016 AT ANNEX-G AND ETC.,
IN WRIT PETITION No.52014/2016
BETWEEN
M/S SOBHA LTD
(FORMERLY SOBHA DEVELOPERS LIMITED)
A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER
THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956
AND HAVING ITS REGISTERED AND CORPORATE OFICE
AT "SOBHA", SARJAPUR-MARTHAHALLI, OUTER RING
ROAD (ORR),
DEVARABEESANAHALLI, BELLANDUR POST,
BANGALORE 560103.
REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY,
MRS.V.PADMAVATHI
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI KEMPEGOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI ANUP S SHAH LAW FIRM, ADVOCATES)
AND
1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,
TH
4 FLOOR, VIKAS SOUDHA
AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BANGALORE-560 001.
19
2 . BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE
N.R. SQUARE,
BANGALORE 560 002
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER.
3 . JOINT DIRECTOR
TOWN PLANNING (NORTH)
BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE
N.R. SQUARE,
BANGALORE 560 002.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI R. SRINIVAS GOWDA, AGA FOR R-1,
SRI SREENIDHI V & SMT SINCHANA M.R., ADVOCATES
FOR R2 & R3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 19.09.2016 AT
ANNEX-A ISSUED BY R-3 TO THE EXTENT OF
RS.1,36,95,210/- CLAIMED TOWARDS GROUND RENT &
ETC.,
IN WRIT PETITION No.8204/2017
BETWEEN
M/S BRIDGE ENTERPRISES LTD.,
A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE
COMPANIES ACT, 1956
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT:
29TH & 30TH FLOOR, "WORLD TRADE CENTER
BANGALORE",
BRIGADE GATEWAY CAMPUS,
NO.26/1, DR. RAJKUMAR ROAD,
MALLESWARAM-RAJAJINAGAR,
BANGALORE 560 055,
REPRESENTED BY ITS
DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER-LEGAL
SRI. UDAYA KUMAR.A
20
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI ZULFIKIR KUMAR SHAFI AND
SRI S.LAKSHMINARAYANA REDDY, ADVOCATES)
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,
TH
4 FLOOR, VIKASA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU – 560 001
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
2. BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE
N.R. SQUARE, BENGALURU – 560 002
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER.
3. THE JOINT DIRECTOR
TOWN PLANNING (NORTH)
BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE
BBMP ANNEX BUILDING,
N.R. SQUARE, BENGALURU – 560 002.
4. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER
(MAHADEVAPURA RANGE)
BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE
BENGALURU – 560 047.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI R. SRINIVAS GOWDA, AGA FOR R1;
SRI SREENIDHI V., AND SMT.SINCHANA M.R.,
ADVOCATES FOR R2 TO R4 (PHYSICAL HEARING))
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
SET ASIDE THE DEMAND NOTICE DTD:7.2.2017 ISSUED
BY R-3, TO THE EXTENT OF DEMANDING THE
PETITIONER TO PAY AN AMOUNT OF RS.1,96,68,000/-
[RUPEES ONE CRORE NINETY SIX LAKHS SIXTY EIGHT
THOUSAND ONLY] TOWARDS GROUND RENT TOWARDS
21
PENALTY FOR BUIDLING CONSTRUCTED WITHOUT
OBTAINING COMMENCEMENT CERTIFICATE AND ETC.,
IN WRIT PETITION No.11065/2017
BETWEEN
1. THE STANDARD BRICK AND TILE COMPANY
(YELAHANKA) PRIVATE LIMITED,
A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE
PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES ACT
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT:
BENGALURU- BALLARI ROAD,
YELAHANKA POST, YELAHANKA
BENGALURU – 560 064 AND
REPRESENTED BY ITS
POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER
MR. CHATRU M. MENDA,
AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE/SIGNATORY.
2. M/S RMZ GALLERIA (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED
A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE
COMPANIES ACT, 1956
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT LEVEL 12-14,
“THE MILLENIA” TOWER-B, NO.1 & 2,
MURPHY ROAD, ULSOOR,
BENGALURU – 560 008,
REPRESENTED BY ITS
AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY,
MR. CHATRU MENDA.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI B.N.PRAKASH, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT,
TH
4 FLOOR, VIKAS SOUDHA,
22
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU – 560 001.
2. BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE
N.R.SQUARE, BENGALURU – 560 002
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER.
3. JOINT DIRECTOR
TOWN PLANNING (NORTH),
BRUHAT BENGALURU
MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
N.R.SQUARE, BENGALURU – 560 002.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI R. SRINIVAS GOWDA, AGA FOR R1;
SRI SREENIDHI V. AND SMT. SINCHANA M.R.,
ADVOCATES FOR R2 AND R3 (PHYSICAL HEARING))
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE DEMAND NOTICE DTD 01.06.2016 VIDE
ANNX - A ISSUED BY THE R-2, BBMP, SO FAR AS IT
RELATES TO CLAIM MADE FOR PAYMENT OF GROUND
RENT IS CONCERNED AND ETC.
IN WRIT PETITION No.12656/2017
BETWEEN
MRO-TEK REALITY LIMITED
(FORMERLY KNOWN AS MRO-TEK LIMITED)
A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE
COMPANIES ACT, 1956
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT
HEBBAL, BELLARY ROAD,
BENGALURU – 560 024
REPRESENTED BY ITS GPA HOLDER
M/S UMIYA BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS,
A PROPRIETARY CONCERN HAVING ITS
23
OFFICE AT NO.29/3, H M STRFFORD,
TH
II FLOOR, 7 CROSS ROAD,
VASANTHANAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 052
REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR,
ANIRUDDH MEHTA.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI VIVEKANANDA T.P., ADVOCATE)
AND
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,
TH
4 FLOOR, VIKAS SOUDHA,
DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU – 560 001.
2. THE BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
N.R.SQUARE, BENGALURU – 560 002
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER.
3. THE JOINT DIRECTOR (TOWN PLANNING -NORTH)
BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
N.R.SQUARE, BENGALURU – 560 002.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI R.SRINIVAS GOWDA, AGA FOR R1;
SRI SREENIDHI V., AND SMT.SINCHANA M.R.,
ADVOCATES FOR R2 AND R3 (PHYSICAL HEARING))
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH
THE DEMAND NOTICE DTD.20/21.2.2017 VIDE ANNEX-G
ISSUED BY THE R-3 ONLY IN SO FAR AS THE DEMAND OF
RS.2,30,90,123/- TOWARDS THE GROUND RENT AND
ETC.,
24
IN WRIT PETITION No.13588/2017
BETWEEN
M/S BHARTIYA CITY DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED
(ERSTWHILE, ZIGMA LAND DEVELOPERS PVT LTD)
A COMPANY INCORPORATE UNDER:
THE COMPANIES ACT 1956
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT:
56/7, NALLAMBAKKAM VILLAGE (VIA VANDALUR)
CHENNAI, TAMIL NADU - 600048
AND CORPORATE OFFICE AT: #100/1,
ANCHORAGE - 1, RICHMOND ROAD,
BENGALURU- 560025
REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY
MR SHAMA SUNDER R J
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI KEMPEGOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR
M/S ANUP S. SHAH LAW FIRM, ADVOCATES)
AND
1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
4TH FLOOR, VIKAS SOUDHA
AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BANGALORE - 560001
2 . BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE
N R SQUARE
BANGALORE - 560002
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER
3. JOINT DIRECTOR
TOWN PLANNING (NORTH)
25
BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE
N R SQUARE
BANGALORE - 560002
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI R SRINIVAS GOWDA, AGA FOR R-1,
SRI SREENIDHI V AND SMT.SINCHANA M.R.,
ADVOCATES FOR R2 AND R3 (PHYSICAL HEARING))
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 4.3.2017
(ANNEXURE- A) ISSUED BY THE R-3 INSOFAR AS IT
RELATES AND REQUIRES PETITIONER TO PAY GROUND
RENT TO THE TUNE OF RS.44,65,323/- & ETC.,
IN WRIT PETITION No.14530/2017
BETWEEN
M/S BRIGADE PROPERTIES PVT LTD
A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE
COMPANIES ACT,1956
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT:
29TH & 30TH FLOOR,
"WORLD TRADE CENTER BANGALORE"
BRIGADE GATEWAY CAMPUS,
NO.26/1, DR.RAJKUMAR ROAD,
MALLESWARAM-RAJAJINAGAR
BANGALORE-560 055
REPRESENTED BY ITS
AUTHORISED SIGNATORY
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI ZULFIKIR KUMAR SHAFI, ADVOCATE)
26
AND
1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
4TH FLOOR, VIKASA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU-560 001
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
2 . BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE
N.R.SQUARE,
BENGALURU-560 002
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER
3 . THE JOINT DIRECTOR
TOWN PLANNING (NORTH)
BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
BBMP ANNEX BUILDING,
N.R.SQUARE,
BENGALURU-560 002
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI R SRINIVAS GOWDA, AGA FOR R-1,
SRI SREENIDHI V AND SMT.SINCHANA M.R.,
ADVOCATES FOR R2 AND R3 (PHYSICAL HEARING))
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
SET AISDE THE DEMAND NOTICE DTD.15.3.2017 ISSUED
BY R-3, TO THE EXTENT OF CALLING UPON THE
PETITIONER TO PAY RS.96,87,000/- [RUPEES NINETY SIX
LAKHS EIGHTY SEVEN THOUSAND ONLY] OUT OF WHICH
AN AMOUNT OF RS.57,91,624/- [RUPEES FIFTY SEVEN
LAKHS NINETY ONE THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED AND
TWENTY FOUR ONLY] TOWARDS GROUND RENT, AS A
PRE-REQUISITE CONDITION FOR ISSUANCE OF
OCCUPANCY CERTIFICATE IN RESPECT OF A
RESIDENTIAL PROJECT OF THE PETITIONER, UNDER THE
27
BANNER 'BRIGADE COSMOPOLIS' VIDE ANNEX-A.
IN WRIT PETITION No.16461/2017
BETWEEN
ST. JOSEPH COLLEGE HOSTEL
NO 36, LONGFORD ROAD,
RICHMOND TOWN,
WARD - 111,
BENGALURU - 560027
REPRESENTED BY ITS
SECRETARY AND TREASURER
THE BANGALORE JESUIT EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY
FR. JASON FURTADO S.J.,
S/O WILLIAM FURTADO
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI JAYAKUMAR S.PATIL, SENIOR COUNSEL A/W.
SRI DAYANAND S.PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT
BY ITS SECRETARY
VIKAS SOUDHA
BENGALURU – 560 001.
2. BRUHATH BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE
BY ITS COMMISSIONER
N.R.SQUARE,
BENGALURU – 560 002.
3. THE ASST. DIRECTOR OF TOWN PLANNING (EAST)
ND
22 FLOOR, SUBHAS CHANDRA BOSE BUILDING,
M G ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 015.
28
4. THE JOINT DIRECTOR (TOWN PLANNING- NORTH)
BRUHATH BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE
N R SQUARE, BENGALURU - 560002
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI R.SRINIVAS GOWDA, AGA FOR R1;
SRI SREENIDHI V., AND SMT.SINCHANA M.R.,
ADVOCATES FOR R2 TO R4 (PHYSICAL HEARING))
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 22.3.2017 ISSUED
BY R-4 AT ANNEX-G IN SO FAR AS PERTAINS TO LEVY
AND DEMAND OF GROUND RENT, SECURITY DEPOSIT
AND LICENSE FEES AND ETC.,
IN WRIT PETITION No.17164/2017
BETWEEN
SOBHA LIMITED
(FORMERLY SOBHA DEVELOPERS LIMITED)
A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES
ACT 1956 AND HAVING ITS REGISTERED AND
CORPORATE OFFICE AT SOBHA SARJAPUR -
MARTHAHALLI OUTER RING ROAD (ORR)
DEVERABEEESANAHALLI BELLANDUR POST
BANGALORE - 560103
REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY
MRS V PADMAVATHI
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI KEMPEGOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR
M/S ANUP S. SHAH LAW FIRM, ADVOCATES)
29
AND
1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
TH
4 FLOOR, VIKAS SOUDHA
AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BANGALORE - 560001
2 . BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE
N R SQUARE
BANGALORE - 560002
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER
3 . JOINT DIRECTOR
TOWN PLANNING SOUTH
N R SQUARE
BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE
BANGALORE - 560002
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI R SRINIVAS GOWDA, AGA FOR R-1,
SRI SREENIDHI V AND SMT.SINCHANA M.R.,
ADVOCATES FOR R2 AND R3 (PHYSICAL HEARING))
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
DELCARE THE BYELAW 3.9 IN THE BANGALORE
MAHANAGARA PALIKE BUILDING BYE-LAWS 2003
(ANNEXURE-A) AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL, ILLEGAL AND
ULTRA VIRES & ETC.,
IN WRIT PETITION No.17436/2017
BETWEEN
BHAGWAN MAHAVEER MEMORIAL JAIN TRUST (REGD.)
30
MILLERS ROAD, VASANTHNAGAR,
BENGALURU-560 052
REP. BY ITS PRESIDENT,
SRI PHOOLCHAND JAIN
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI SANJAY NAIR, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,
TH
4 FLOOR, VIKAS SOUDHA,
AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU-560 001
2. BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE
N.R.SQUARE,
BENGALURU-560 002
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER
3. JOINT DIRECTOR
TOWN PLANNING (NORTH)
BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
N.R.SQUARE,
BENGALURU-560 002
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI R. SRINIVAS GOWDA, AGA FOR R1
SRI SREENIDHI V. AND SMT. SINCHANA M.R.,
ADVOCATES FOR R2 AND R3(PHYSICAL HEARING))
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
DECLARE THE BYE LAW 3.9 IN THE BENGALURU
MAHANAGARA PALIKE BUILDING BYE-LAWS 2003
(ANNEXURE-A) AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL, ILLEGAL AND
ULTRA VIRES ETC.
31
IN WRIT PETITION No.37473/2017
BETWEEN
M/S BHARTIYA CITY DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,
(ERSTWHILE, ZIGMA LAND DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,)
A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER
THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956,
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT:
56/7, NALLAMBAKKAM VILLAGE (VIA VANDALUR),
CHENNAI, TAMIL NADU - 640 048 AND
CORPORATE OFFICE AT:
100/1, ANCHORAGE,
RICHMOND ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 025.
REPRESENTED BY ITS
AUTHORISED SIGNATORY,
MR.SHAMA SUNDER R.J.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI CHANDRASHEKAR G.V., FOR
M/S ANUP S. SHAH LAW FIRM, ADVOCATES)
AND
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY IT’S PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,
TH
4 FLOOR, VIKAS SOUDHA,
AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
N.R.SQUARE, BENGALURU - 560 002.
REPRESENTED BY IT’S COMMISSIONER.
32
3. JOINT DIRECTOR
TOWN PLANNING (NORTH),
BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
N.R.SQUARE, BENGALURU - 560 002.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI R.SRINIVAS GOWDA, AGA FOR R1;
SRI SREENIDHI V. AND SMT.SINCHANA M.R.,
ADVOCATES FOR R2 AND R3 (PHYSICAL HEARING))
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
DECLARE THE BYELAW 3.9 IN THE BANGALORE
MAHANAGARA PALIKE BUILDING BYE-LAWS 2003 VIDE
ANNEXURE - A AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL, ILLEGAL AND
ULTRA VIRES AND ETC.,
IN WRIT PETITION No.38743/2017
BETWEEN
MR. H R CHANDRASHEKHAR
S/O. LATE. H. RAMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS
NO. 12/1, NEXT TO CANARA BANK,
BEHIND ORIENTAL INSURANCE BUILDING,
BELLARY ROAD, HEBBAL,
BENGALURU - 560006.
REP BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER:
M/S SOBHA LIMITED
(FORMERLY SOBHA DEVELOPERS LIMITED),
A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER
THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956, AND HAVING ITS
REGISTERED AND CORPORATE OFFICE AT
"SOBHA", SARJAPUR-MARATHALLI OUTER
RING ROAD (ORR), DEVERABEESANAHALLI,
BELLANDUR POST, BENGALURU - 560 103.
33
REP. BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY,
MRS. V PADMAVATHI
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI KEMPEGOWDA FOR M/S ANUP S. SHAH LAW
FIRM, ADVOCATES)
AND
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP BY ITS SECRETARY,
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,
TH
4 FLOOR, VIKAS SOUDHA,
AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU 560001
2. BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE
N R SQUARE, BENGALURU - 560002.
REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER,
3. JOINT DIRECTOR
TOWN PLANNING (NORTH),
BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
N R SQUARE, BENGALURU - 560002
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI R.SRINIVAS GOWDA, AGA FOR R1;
SRI SREENIDHI V. AND SMT.SINCHANA M.R.,
ADVOCATES FOR R2 AND R3 (PHYSICAL HEARING))
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
DECLARE THE BYELAW 3.9 OF THE BANGALORE
MAHANAGARA PALIKE BUILDING BYE-LAW 2003 AT
ANNEX-A AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL, ILLEGAL AND ULTRA
VIRES AND ETC.,
34
IN WRIT PETITION No.47077/2017
BETWEEN
M/S BHARTIYA CITY DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED
(ERSTWHILE, ZIGMA LAND DEVELOPERS PVT LTD)
A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER
THE COMPANIES ACT 1956
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT:
56/7, NALLAMBAKKAM VILLAGE (VIA VANDALUR)
CHENNAI, TAMIL NADU-600048 AND
CORPORATE OFFICE AT:
100/1, ANCHORAGE
RICHMOND ROAD,
BENGALURU-560025
REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY
MR SHAMA SUNDER R J
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI KEMPEGOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI ANUP S. SHAH LAW FIRM, ADVOCATES)
AND
1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,
TH
4 FLOOR, VIKAS SOUDHA
AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU-560 001
2 . BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE
N.R.SQUARE
BENGALURU-560 002
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER
35
3 . JOINT DIRECTOR
TOWN PLANNING (NORTH)
BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE
N.R.SQUARE
BENGALURU-560 002
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI R SRINIVAS GOWDA, AGA FOR R- 1,
SRI SREENIDHI V & SMT SINCHANA M.R., ADVOCATES
FOR R2 & R3 (PHYSICAL HEARING))
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
DECLARE THE BYE LAW NO.3.9 OF THE BANGALORE
MAHANAGARA PALIKE BUILDING BYE-LAWS 2003 (ANNX-
A) AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL, ILLEGAL AND ULTRA VIRES.
IN WRIT PETITION No.58170/2017
BETWEEN
M/S GOPALAN ENTERPRISES INDIA PVT LTD
NO.5, RICHMOND ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 025
REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR,
MR. C. PRAMOD.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI G.KRISHNAMURTHY, SENIOR COUNSEL A/W.
SRI CHANDRAKANTH PATIL K. AND SMT. APARNA N.,
ADVOCATES)
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY,
36
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU 560 001.
2. DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT
AND MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION,
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
VIKASA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU 560 001.
3. THE COMMISSIONER
BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PLIKE,
N.R. SQUARE, J.C. ROAD,
BENGALURU 560 002.
4. THE JOINT DIRECTOR-TOWN PLANNING NORTH
BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE
N.R. SQUARE, J.C. ROAD,
BENGALURU 560 002.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI R.SRINIVAS GOWDA, AGA FOR R1 AND R2;
SRI SREENIDHI V., AND SMT.SINCHANA M.R.,
ADVOCATES FOR R3 AND R4 (PHYSICAL HEARING))
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.146/2017
ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL SESSION AND SPECIAL
JUDGE, D.K. MANGALORE, IN CRIME NO.86/2016
REGISTERED BY THE VENOOR POLICE AS AGAINST THE
PETITIONER FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER
SECTION 36, 42, 44, 3 OF MMRD ACT AND KMMC RULES
1994 AND SECTION 21[4], 21[4A], 4, A[1A] OF MINES AND
MINERAL REGULATION OF DEVELOPMENT ACT AND
SECTION 379 OF IPC VIDE ANNEXURE-A.
37
IN WRIT PETITION No.6381/2018
BETWEEN
1 . SADUPADESHA VIDYALAYA
NO. 28/1,
HENNUR ROAD,
KALYAN NAGAR,
BANGALORE 560043
2 . SADUPADESHA VIDYALAYA TRUST
NO. 28/1,
HENNUR ROAD,
KALYAN NAGAR,
BANGALORE 560043
REPRESENTED BY THIER GPA HOLDER,
M/S ASHED PROPERTIES AND
INVESTMENTS PVT LTD,
A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER
PROVISIONS OF INDIAN COMPANIES ACT,
HAVING REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.807,
8TH FLOOR, BARTON CENTRE,
MG ROAD, BANGALORE 560001.
REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,
MR. SAMEER A KHAN
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI T.P.VIVEKANANDA, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP BY ITS SECRETARY,
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,
TH
4 FLOOR, VIKAS SOUDHA,
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BANGALORE 560001
38
2 . THE BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE
NR SQUARE,
BANGALORE 560002,
REP BY ITS COMMISSIONER,
3 . THE JOINT DIRECTOR (TOWN PLANNING NORTH)
THE BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
NR SQUARE,
BANGALORE 560002.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI R SRINIVAS GOWDA, AGA FOR R1,
SRI SREENIDHI V & SMT SINCHANA M.R., ADVOCATES
FOR R2 & R3 (PHYSICAL HEARING))
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH
THE DEMAND NOTICE DTD:24.1.2018 AT ANNEXURE-H
ISSUED BY THE R-3 ONLY IN SO FAR AS THE DEMAND OF
RS.48,11,250/- TOWARDS THE GROUND RENT.
IN WRIT PETITION No.9028/2018
BETWEEN
M/S ZONASHA ESTATES AND PROJECTS
ND
NO.1075, 2 FLOOR,
TH TH
12 MAIN, 8 CROSS,
INDIRANAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 038
REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER,
SRI R.NAGARAJ
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI SHIVANANDA S., ADVOCATE)
39
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS
ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY,
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU – 560 001.
2. THE COMMISSIONER
BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
N.R.SQUARE, BENGALURU – 560 002.
3. THE JOINT DIRECTOR
TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (NORTH)
BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
N.R.SQUARE, BENGALURU – 560 002.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI R.SRINIVAS GOWDA, AGA FOR R1;
SRI SREENIDHI V., AND SMT.SINCHANA M.R.,
ADVOCATES FOR R2 AND R3 (PHYSICAL HEARING))
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH
THE CIRCULAR ISSUED BY THE R-2 COMMISSIONER DTD:
4.9.2015 LEVYING FEES FOR ISSUE OF I.T/B.T BUILDING
LICENSE/SANCTION PLAN AS, AS CONTAINED IN
ANNEXURE-H AND THE DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED BY THE
R-2 COMMISSIONER DTD:15.2.2018 AS CONTAINED IN
ANNEXURE-J AND ETC.,
IN WRIT PETITION No.9581/2018
BETWEEN
M/S ESTEEM ICON
A PARTNERSHIP FIRM
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.32,33,34
40
RD
3 FLOOR, SNS CHAMBER,
239, SANKEY ROAD,
SADASHIVANAGAR,
BENGALURU – 560 080
REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER
SRI NARAINDAS BODARAM.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI SHIVANANDA S., ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS
ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY,
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,
VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU – 560 001.
2. THE COMMISSIONER
BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
N.R.SQUARE, BENGALURU – 560 002.
3. THE JOINT DIRECTOR
TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (NORTH),
BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
N.R.SQUARE, BENGALURU – 560 002.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI R.SRINIVAS GOWDA, AGA FOR R1;
SRI SREENIDHI V., AND SMT.SINCHANA M.R.,
ADVOCATES FOR R2 AND R3 (PHYSICAL HEARING))
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE CIRCULAR ISSUED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT COMMISSIONER DATED 4.9.2015 LEVYING
FEES FOR ISSUE OF I.T/B.T BUILDING
LICENSE/SANCTION PLAN AS, AS CONTAINED IN
41
ANNEXURE-G, AND THE DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED BY
THE 2ND RESPONDENT COMMISSIONER DATED
17.2.2018, AS CONTAINED IN ANNEXURE-H AND ETC.,
IN WRIT PETITION No.11868/2018
BETWEEN
M/S ESTEEM ROYALE
A PARTNERSHIP FIRM
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.32, 33, 34
RD
3 FLOOR, SNS CHAMBER,
239, SANKEY ROAD
SADASHIVANAGAR
BENGALURE – 560 080
REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER
SRI SUNIL S. BATHIJA.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI SHIVANANDA S., ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS
ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY,
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU – 560 001.
2. THE COMMISSIONER
BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
N.R.SQUARE, BENGALURU – 560 002.
3. THE JOINT DIRECTOR
42
TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (SOUTH),
BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE
N.R.SQUARE, BENGALURU – 560 002.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SRINIVAS GOWDA, AGA FOR R1;
SRI SREENIDHI V AND SMT.SINCHANA M.R.,
ADVOCATES FOR R2 AND R3 (PHYSICAL HEARING))
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH
THE CIRCULAR ISSUED BY THE R-2 COMMISSIONER DTD:
4.9.2015 LEVYING FEES FOR ISSUE OF
I.T./B.T./APARTMENTS BUILDING LICENSE/SANCTION
PLAN, AS CONTAINED IN ANNEXURE-F AND THE DEMAND
NOTICE ISSUED BY THE R-3 COMMISSIONER
DTD:8.3.2018 AS CONTAINED IN ANNEXURE-G AND ETC.,
IN WRIT PETITION No.12522/2018
BETWEEN
M/S. SUMADHURA INFRACON PVT. LTD.,
A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY
INCORPORATED UNDER THE INDIAN
COMPANIES ACT, 1956,
HAVING ITS REGISTERED
OFFICE AT NO.43,
ND
2 FLOOR, "CKB PLAZA",
VARTHUR MAIN ROAD,
MARATHAHALLI, BENGALURU – 560 037,
REPRESENTED BY ITS
CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR,
SRI G. MADHUSUDHAN,
SON OF LATE SRI. SATTAIAH.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI SHIVANANDA S., ADVOCATE)
43
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS
ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY,
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,
VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU – 560 001.
2. THE COMMISSIONER
BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
N.R.SQUARE, BENGALURU – 560 002.
3. THE JOINT DIRECTOR
TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (NORTH),
BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
N.R.SQUARE, BENGALURU – 560 002.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI R.SRINIVAS GOWDA, AGA FOR R1;
SRI SREENIDHI V. AND SMT.SINCHANA M.R.,
ADVOCATES FOR R2 AND R3 (PHYSICAL HEARING))
IN WRIT PETITION No.13143/2018
BETWEEN
M/S SNS PLAZA
A PARTNERSHIP FIRM,
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT 239,
3RD FLOOR, SNS CHAMBER, SANKEY ROAD,
SADASHIVANAGAR,
BENGALURU 560080,
REP BY ITS PARTNER,
SRI. NARINDAS BODARAM
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI SHIVANANDA S, ADVOCATE)
44
AND
1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS
ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY,
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU 560001
2 . THE COMMISSIONER
BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
N R SQUARE,
BENGALURU 560002
3 . THE JOINT DIRECTOR
TOWN AND COUNTY PLANNING (NORTH),
BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGAR PALIKE,
N R SQUARE,
BENGALURU 560002.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI R.SRINIVAS GOWDA, AGA FOR R-1,
SRI SREENIDHI V AND SMT.SINCHANA M.R.,
ADVOCATES FOR R2 AND R3 (PHYSICAL HEARING))
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH
THE CIRCULAR ISSUED BY R-2 COMMISSIONER DATED
4.9.2015 LEVYING FEES FOR ISSUE OF
I.T/B.T/APARTMENTS BUILDING LICENSE / SANCTION
PLAN AS, AS CONTAINED IN ANNEX-F, AND THE DEMAND
NOTICE ISSUED BY R-3 COMMISSIONER DATED 16.3.2018
AS CONTAINED IN ANNEXURE- G AND ETC.,
45
IN WRIT PETITION No.13465/2018
BETWEEN
1. SATTVA HOUSING PVT LTD
A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE
COMPANIES ACT 1956, HAVING ITS REGISTERED
OFFICE AT NO.4TH FLOOR,
SALARPURIA WINDSOR, NO.3,
ULSOOR ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 042
REPRESENTED BY ITS
AUTHORISED SIGNATORY
ASHWIN SANCHETI
S/O LATE MANOHARCHAND SANCHETI
AGED ABOAUT 41 YEARS.
2 . DAZZLE TRADING LLP
FORMERLY KNOWN AS
DAZZLE TRADING PRIVATE LIMITED
A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP
INCORPORATED UNDER THE
PROVISIONS OF LIMITED
LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP ACT 2008
HAVING ITS REGISTERED
OFFICE AT NO.222,
GOKALDAS CHAMBERS, 5TH MAIN,
SADASHIVNAGAR, BELLARY ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 080
REPRESENTED BY ITS POWER OF ATTORNEY
HOLDER SATTVA HOUSING PVT.
LTD. THROUGH AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE
MR.ASHWIN SANCHETI
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SMT. ANUPARNA BORDOLOI, ADVOCATE FOR
M/S SHETTY & HEGDE ASSOCIATES)
46
AND
1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU-560 001.
2 . THE COMMISSIONER
BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGAR PALIKE,
N.R.SQUARE,
BENGALURU-560 002.
3 . JOINT DIRECTOR OF TOWN PLANNING (NORTH)
BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGAR PALIKE,
N.R.SQUARE,
BENGALURU-560 002
4 . ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR (TOWN PLANNING)
BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
N.R.SQUARE,
BENGALURU-560 002.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI R SRINIVAS GOWDA, AGA FOR R-1,
SRI SREENIDHI V AND SMT.SINCHANA M.R.,
ADVOCATES FOR R2 TO R4 (PHYSICAL HEARING))
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DTD 28.02.2018 ISSUED BY
R-3 SO FAR AS IT DIRECTS THE PETITIONER HEREIN TO
DEPOSIT GROUND RENT OF RS.2,30,15,000/- VIDE ANNX-
A & ETC.
47
IN WRIT PETITION No.14265/2018
BETWEEN
1. SMT H G SHEELA
W/O SRI R NAGARAJ,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
2 . SMT G VANITHA
W/O SRI G PRABHU,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
3 . SMT G KOKILA
W/O VINOD,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
ALL ARE R/AT NO.80,
ND
2 MAIN ROAD, I CROSS, DEFENCE COLONY,
INDIRANAGAR, BENGALURU-560038.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI SHIVANANDA S., ADVOCATE)
AND
1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS ADDITIONAL CHIEF
SECRETARY,
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU-560001.
2 . THE COMMISSIONER
BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
N.R.SQUARE,
BENGALURU-560002.
48
3 . THE JOINT DIRECTOR
TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (NORTH)
BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
N.R.SQUARE,
BENGALURU-560002
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI R SRINIVAS GOWDA, AGA FOR R-1,
SRI SREENIDHI V AND SMT.SINCHANA M.R.,
ADVOCATES FOR R2 AND R3 (PHYSICAL HEARING))
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH
THE CIRCULAR ISSUED BY THE R-2 COMMISSIONER
DTD:4.9.2015 LEVYING FEES FOR ISSUE OF I.T./B.T.
BUILDING LICENSE/SANCTION PLAN AS CONTAINED IN
ANNEXURE-E AND THE DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED BY THE
R-2 COMMISSIONER DTD:21.3.2018 AS CONTAINED IN
ANNEXURE-F & ETC.,
IN WRIT PETITION No.14307/2018
BETWEEN
1 . MRS. B.V.JAYALAKSHMI
AGED 62 YEARS,
D/O LATE P N VENKATARAMANASWAMY,
R/AT NO.127/11, BULL TEMPLE ROAD,
K.G.NAGAR,
BENGALURU-560019.
2 . B N CHETHAN
AGED 32 YEARS,
S/O B V NANJUNDAPPA,
R/AT NO.67/1-11, 7TH CROSS,
SUBRAMANYAPURA MAIN ROAD,
KADRENAHALLI,
BSK 2ND STAGE, BENGALURU-560070.
49
3 . B N MADHURYA
AGED 28 YEARS,
D/O LATE B V NANJUNDAPPA,
R/AT NO.1075/2, 8TH CROSS,
ST.THOMAS TOWN,
LINGARAJAPURAM,
KACHARAKANAHALLI,
BENGALURU-560084.
4 . SMT SHANTHA
AGED 51 YEARS,
W/O LATE B V JAYANTH,
R/AT NO.457, ITI LAYOUT,
OPPOSITE TO GOPALAN ARCHADE,
MYSORE ROAD,
BENGALURU-560039
5 . B J KIRAN
AGED 30 YEARS,
S/O LATE B V JAYANTH,
R/AT NO.457, ITI LAYOUT,
OPPOSITE TO GOPALAN ARCHADE,
MYSORE ROAD,
BENGALURU-560039
6 . B JAYAMMA
AGED 49 YEARS,
W/O B V SOMASHEKAR,
R/AT NO.18, IST MAIN ROAD,
BHEL LAYOUT, KENCHAHALLI,
R.R.NAGAR,
BENGALURU-560098.
7 . B S PUNEETH
AGED 27 YEARS,
S/O LATE B V SOMASHEKAR,
R/AT NO.18, IST MAIN ROAD,
BHEL LAYOUT, KENCHENAHALLI,
R.R.NAGAR, BENGALURU-560098.
50
8 . B S NAVYASHREE
AGED 20 YEARS,
D/O LATE B V SOMASHEKAR,
R/AT NO.18, IST MAIN ROAD,
BHEL LAYOUT, KENCHENAHALLI,
R.R.NAGAR, BENGALURU-560098.
9 . B V PREMA KUMARI
AGED 52 YEARS,
D/O LATE P N VENKATARAMANASWAMY,
R/AT NO.426, RAJARAJESHWARI NILAYA,
5TH MAIN, 5TH CROSS,
KENGERI SATELLITE TOWN,
BENGALURU-560060.
ALL THE PETITIONERS ARE
REPRESENTED BY
THEIR GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY
HOLDER M/S M N LANDMAARK,
A REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM,
HAVING ITS REGISTERED
OFFICE AT NO.11, A.S.COMPLEX,
8TH MAIN, BASAVESHWARANAGAR,
BENGALURU-560079
BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,
SRI D RAGHU.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI VIVEKANANDA.T.P., ADVOCATE)
AND
1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,
4TH FLOOR, VIKAS SOUDHA,
DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU-560001
51
2 . THE BRUHATH BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE
N.R.SUQARE,
BENGALURU-560002
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER
3 . THE JOINT DIRECTOR
TOWN PLANNING (SOUTH)
BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
N.R.SQUARE,
BENGALURU-560002.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI R SRINIVAS GOWDA, AGA FOR R-1,
SRI SREENIDHI V AND SMT.SINCHANA M.R.,
ADVOCATES FOR R2 AND R3 (PHYSICAL HEARING))
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE DEMAND NOTICE DTD:21.3.2018 AT
ANNEXURE-D ISSUED BY THE R-3 IN SO FAR AS THE
DEMAND OF RS.54,41,670.27/- TOWARDS THE GROUND
RENT AND RS.1,06,83,560.47 TOWARDS THE LICENSE
FEE & ETC.,
IN WRIT PETITION No.16282/2018
BETWEEN
BHARTIYA CITY DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED
A COMPANY INCORPORTED UNDER THE
COMPANIES ACT 1956,
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT
100/1, GROUND FLOOR,
ANCHORAGE-1, RICHMOND ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 025
REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED
SIGNATORY
MR SHAMA SUNDER R J
52
S/O LATE MR R M JANARDHAN
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
... PETITIONER
(BY SMT. ANUPARNA BORDOLOI, ADVOCATE)
AND
1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU-560 001
2 . THE COMMISSIONER
BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
N.R.SQUARE,
BENGALURU-560 002
3 . JOINT DIRECTOR OF TOWN PLANNING (NORTH)
BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
N.R.SQUARE,
BENGALURU-560 002
4 . ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR (TOWN PLANNING)
BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
N.R.SQUARE,
BENGALURU-560 002
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI R SRINIVAS GOWDA, AGA FOR R-1,
SRI SREENIDHI V AND SMT.SINCHANA M.R., ADVOCATES
FOR R2 TO R4 (PHYSICAL HEARING))
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DTD 17.02.2018 ISSUED BY
R-3 SO FAR AS IT DIRECTS THE PETITIONER HEREIN TO
53
DEPOSIT GROUND RENT OF RS.2,04,09,706/- AND
LICENSE FEE OF RS.2,63,94,789/- VIDE ANNX-A.
IN WRIT PETITION No.16990/2018
BETWEEN
M/S. YUKEN INDIA PVT. LTD.,
REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO. 16,
WHITEFIELD ROAD,
WHITEFIELD,
BENGALURU-560 066,
REPRESENTED BY ITS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER,
BRIGADE ENTERPRISES LTD.,
TH TH
29 AND 30 FLOOR,
WORLD TRADE CENTER,
26/1, BRIGADE GATEWAY,
DR. RAJKUMAR ROAD,
MALLESHWARAM,
RAJAJINAGAR,
BENGALURU-560 055,
REPRESENTED BY SMT. GAYATHRI SHEELAVANT,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI SHIVANANDA S., ADVOCATE)
AND
1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS ADDITIONAL CHIEF
SECRETARY,
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU-560 001.
2 . THE COMMISSIONER
BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
N.R. SQUARE,
BENGALURU-560 002.
54
3 . THE JOINT DIRECTOR
TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (NORTH),
BRUHATH BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
N.R. CIRCLE,
BENGALURU-560 002.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI R. SRINIVAS GOWDA, AGA FOR R-1,
SRI SREENIDHI V AND SMT.SINCHANA M.R., ADVOCATES
FOR R2 AND R3 (PHYSICAL HEARING))
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH
THE CIRCULAR ISSUED BY R-2 COMMISSIONER DATED
4.9.2015 LEVYING FEES FOR ISSUE OF I.T / B.T BUILDING
LICENSE / SANCTION PLAN AS CONTAINED IN ANNEX-E,
AND THE DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED BY R-3 DATED
6.4.2018 AT ANNEX-F & ETC.,
IN WRIT PETITION No.17048/2018
BETWEEN
1 . SRI. AL MUTHAIAH
SON OF LATE SRI M.AL. ALAGAPPA CHETTIAR
AGED ABOUT 84 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.34,
RMV EXTENSION,
SADASHIVANAGAR
BENGALURU - 560080
2 . SRI A L ANNAMALAI
SON OF LATE SRI M.A.L. ALAGAPPA CHETTIAR
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO 221,
UPPER PALACE ORCHARDS
BELLARY ROAD,
SADASHIVANAGAR
55
BENGALURU - 560080
REP BY THEIR POWER OF
ATTORNEY HOLDER.
BRIGADE ENTERPRISES LTD
TH TH
29 & 30 FLOOR,
WORLD TRADE CENTER,
26/1, BRIGADE GATEWAY,
DR RAJKUMAR ROAD, MALLESHWARAM,
RAJAJINAGAR
BENGALURU - 560055
REPRESENTED BY SMT ROHINI B M
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI SHIVANANDA S., ADVOCATE)
AND
1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS ADDITIONAL CHIEF
SECRETARY
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BENGALURU - 560001
2 . THE COMMISSIONER
BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE
N R SQUARE
BENGALURU - 560002
3 . THE JOINT DIRECTOR
TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (NORTH)
BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE
N R CIRCLE, BENGALURU - 560002
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI R. SRINIVAS GOWDA, AGA FOR R-1,
SRI SREENIDHI V AND SMT.SINCHANA M.R.,
ADVOCATES FOR R2 AND R3 (PHYSICAL HEARING))
56
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO i) QUASH
THE CIRCULAR ISSUED BY THE R-2 COMMISSIONER DTD
4.9.2015 LEVYING FEES FOR ISSUE OF I.T/B.T BUILDING
LICENSE/SANCTION PLAN AS VIDE ANNX-E AND THE
DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED BY THE R-3 JOINT DIRECTOR
DTD 09.04.2018 VIDE ANNX-F & ETC.,
IN WRIT PETITION No.17262/2018
BETWEEN
SRI R. SHANKARAPPA
S/O. LATE RAMAKRISHNAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
R/AT NO. 31,
KENCHENAHALLI,
IDEAL HOME TOWNSHIP,
RAJARAJESHWARINAGAR,
MYSORE ROAD, BENGALURU 560098
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI SHIVANANDA.S., ADVOCATE)
AND
1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS ADDL CHIEF SECRETARY,
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU 560001
2 . THE COMMISSIONER
BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
NR SQUARE,
BENGALURU 560002
3 . THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR
TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING,
RAJARAJESHWARINAGAR DIVISION,
BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
57
RAJARAJESWARINAGARA,
BENGALURU 560098
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI R.SRINIVAS GOWDA, AGA FOR R-1,
SRI SREENIDHI V., AND SMT.SINCHANA M.R.,
ADVOCATES FOR R2 AND R3 (PHYSICAL HEARING))
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH
THE CIRCULAR ISSUED BY R-2 COMMISSIONER DATED
4.9.2015 LEVYING FEES FOR ISSUE OF I.T / B.T BUILDING
LICENSE / SANCTION PLAN AS CONTAINED IN ANNEX-E,
AND THE DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED BY R-3 DATED
7.3.2018 AS CONTAINED AT ANNEX-F & ETC.,
IN WRIT PETITION No.17350/2018
BETWEEN
M/S VASTHU PROPERTIES
TH
NO.627, 14 CROSS,
J.P. NAGAR, I PHASE,
BENGALURU - 560078.
REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER
SRI SHIVANAGOUDA PATIL.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI SHIVANANDA S, ADVOCATE)
AND
1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS ADDITIONAL
CHIEF SECRETARY,
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU - 560001.
58
2 . THE COMMISSIONER
BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
N.R. SQUARE,
BENGALURU - 560002.
3 . THE JOINT DIRECTOR
TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (SOUTH),
BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
N.R. CIRCLE,
BENGALURU - 560002.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI R SRINIVAS GOWDA, AGA FOR R-1,
SRI SREENIDHI V AND SMT.SINCHANA M.R.,
ADVOCATES FOR R2 AND R3 (PHYSICAL HEARING))
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH
THE CIRCULAR ISSUED BY R-2 COMMISSIONER DATED
4.9.2015 LEVYING FEES FOR ISSUE OF I.T / B.T BUILDING
LICENSE / SANCTION PLAN AS CONTAINED IN ANNEX-E,
AND THE DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED BY R-3 DATED
21.3.2018 AT ANNEX-F & ETC.,
IN WRIT PETITION No.17352/2018
BETWEEN
1 . SRI B M RAMANNA
S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA,
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS
B R ANANDA KUMAR
S/O LATE B M RAMANNA,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
R/A SY NO.209/3,
KODIGEHALLI HOBLI,
BENGALURU NORTH TALUK,
BENGALURU
59
2 . SRI K RAJANNA
S/O SRI B KRISHNAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS
R/A SY.NO.209/8 AND 209/6,
KODIGEHALLI VILLAGE,
YELAHANKA HOBLI,
BENGALURU NORTH TALUK,
BENGALURU
3 . SRI N SHIVAKUMAR
S/O P NANJUNDAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
R/A SY.NO.209/4,
KODIGEHALLI VILLAGE,
YELAHANKA HOBLI,
BENGALURU NORTH TALUK,
BENGALURU
4 . SRI K G VENKATESH
S/O LATE GUNGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
R/A SY.NO.209/7,
KODIGEHALLI VILLAGE,
YELAHANKA HOBLI,
BENGALURU NORTH TALUK,
BENGALURU
ALL THE PETITIONERS ARE
REPRESENTED BY THEIR GPA HOLDER
SRI S.A.KABEER,
M/S ALPINE HOUSING DEVELOMENT CORPORATION
LTD., NO.302,ALPINE ARCH NO.10,
LANGFORD ROAD, BENGALURU-560 027
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI SHIVANANDA S, ADVOCATE)
AND
1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
60
REPRESENTED BY ITS
ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY,
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU-560 001
2 . THE COMMISSIONER
BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
N.R.SQUARE
BENGALURU-560 002
3 . THE JOINT DIRECTOR
TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (NORTH)
BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
N.R.CIRCLE
BENGALURU-560 002
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI R SRINIVAS GOWDA, AGA FOR R-1,
SRI SREENIDHI V AND SMT.SINCHANA M.R.,
ADVOCATES FOR R2 AND R3 (PHYSICAL HEARING))
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH
THE CIRCULAR ISSUED BY R-2 COMMISSIONER DATED
4.9.2015 LEVYING FEES FOR ISSUE OF I.T / B.T BUILDING
LICENSE / SANCTION PLAN AS CONTAINED IN ANNEX-E,
AND THE DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED BY R-3 DATED
9.4.2018 DIRECTING THE PETITIONER TO DEPOSIT A SUM
OF RS.41,17,000/- TOWARDS GROUND RENT,
DEVELOPMENT FEE FOR THE BUILDING AND SITE,
SECURITY DEPOSIT, LICENCE FEE, COMPOUND WALL
FEE AND RS. 18,69,000/- TOWARDS LABOUR WELFARE
FUND CONTRIBUTION AS CONTAINED AT ANNEX-F &
ETC.,
61
IN WRIT PETITION No.17356/2018
BETWEEN
SMT B S SUSHEELA RAMAMURTHY
D/O. SRI. B. SIDDAGANGAIAH,
W/O. SRI. B. RAMMURTHY,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
RD
R/AT. NO.2240, 23 CROSS,
ND
BSK 2 STAGE,
BENGALURU - 560070.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI SHIVANANDA S., ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS
ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY,
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU - 560001.
2. THE COMMISSIONER
BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
N.R. SQUARE,
BENGALURU - 560002.
3. JOINT DIRECTOR
TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (SOUTH)
BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
N.R. SQUARE,
BENGALURU – 560 002.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI R. SRINIVAS GOWDA, AGA FOR R1
SRI SREENIDHI V. AND SMT. SINCHANA M.R., ADVOCATES
FOR R2 AND R3(PHYSICAL HEARING))
62
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH
THE CIRCULAR ISSUED BY R-2 DATED 4.9.2015 LEVYING
FEES FOR ISSUE OF I.T / B.T BUILDING LICENSE /
SANCTION PLAN, AS CONTAINED IN ANNEX-E, AND THE
DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED BY R-3 DATED 8.3.2018
DIRECTING THE PETITIONER TO DEPOSIT A SUM OF
RS.68,86,000/- TOWARDS GROUND RENT, DEVELOPMENT
FEE FOR THE BUILDING AND SITE, SECURITY DEPOSIT,
LICENCE FEE, COMPOUND WALL FEE AND RS.45,16,000/-
TOWARDS LABOUR WELFARE FUND CONTRIBUTION AS
CONTAINED IN ANNEX-F AND ETC.
IN WRIT PETITION No.18297/2018
BETWEEN
M/S. CONCORD HOUSING CORPORATION LIMITED
A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER
THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956,
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.46/A,
ST RD
1 MAIN, 3 PHASE,
J. P. NAGAR, BENGALURU,
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR,
MR. R.G. ANIL,
S/O. R. GOPAL REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS.
... PETITIONER
(BY SMT. ANUPARNA BORDOLOI, ADVOCATE (VIDEO
CONFERENCING)
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU-560 001.
63
2. THE COMMISSIONER
BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
N.R. SQUARE,
BENGALURU - 560 002.
3. JOINT DIRECTOR OF TOWN PLANNING (NORTH)
BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
N.R. SQUARE, BENGALURU - 560 002.
4. ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR (TOWN PLANNING)
BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
N.R. SQUARE, BENGALURU - 560 002.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI R. SRINIVAS GOWDA, AGA FOR R1 (PHYSICAL
HEARING)
SRI SREENIDHI V. AND SMT. SINCHANA M.R.,
ADVOCATES FOR R2 TO R4(PHYSICAL HEARING))
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 11.04.2018 ISSUED
BY RESPONDENT NO.3 SO FAR AS IT DIRECTS THE
PETITIONER HEREIN TO DEPOSIT GROUND RENT OF
RS.35,20,354/- AND LICENSE FEE OF RS.69,78,899/-
(ANNEXURE-A) ETC.
IN WRIT PETITION No.18530/2018
BETWEEN
SRI G V RAJASHEKAR
S/O. GUDIMETLA KOTA NARASIMHA RAO,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
M/S. VISHALAKSHI HOUSING PROJECTS,
ST
NO.88/1, 1 FLOOR,
64
BEL CORPORATE OFFICE,
BENGALURU RING ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560048.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI NAGARAJA T., ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS
ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY,
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU - 560001.
2. THE COMMISSIONER
BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
N.R. CIRCLE, BENGALURU - 560002.
3. THE JOINT DIRECTOR
TOWN PLANNING, BBMP,
N.R. CIRCLE, BENGALURU - 560002.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI R. SRINIVAS GOWDA, AGA FOR R1 (PHYSICAL
HEARING)
SRI SREENIDHI V. AND SMT. SINCHANA M.R.,
ADVOCATES FOR R2 AND R3(PHYSICAL HEARING))
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE CIRCULAR DTD:21.9.2017 ISSUED BY THE
R-2 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-C AND DEMAND NOTICE
DTD6.4.2018 ISSUED BY THE R-3 PRODUCED AT
ANNEXURE-B.
65
IN WRIT PETITION No.23726/2018
BETWEEN
SRI. K S SATHYANARAYANAREDDY
S/O.LATE SARREDDY,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
R/AT. ROW HOUSE NO.141,
DSR ELITE, MAHADEVPURA,
BENGALURU - 560045.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI NAGARAJA T., ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS
ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY,
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU - 560001.
2. THE COMMISSIONER
BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
N.R. CIRCLE, BENGALURU - 560002.
3. THE JOINT DIRECTOR
TOWN PLANNING - NORTH, BBMP,
N.R. CIRCLE, BENGALURU - 560002.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI R. SRINIVAS GOWDA, AGA FOR R1
(PHYSICAL HEARING)
SRI SREENIDHI V. AND SMT. SINCHANA M.R.,
ADVOCATES FOR R2 AND R3(PHYSICAL HEARING))
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE CIRCULAR DATED 21.09.2017 ISSUED BY R-2
66
AT ANNEX-G AND DEMAND NOTICE DATED 21.04.2018
ISSUED BY R-3 VIDE ANNEX-F ETC.
IN WRIT PETITION No.25545/2018
BETWEEN
SMT. SULOCHANA RAMESH
W/O. SRI P. RAMESH,
NO. 3797, SAI CHITTA,
TH ND
7 MAIN, HAL 2 STAGE,
INDIRANAGAR, BENGALURU 560038.
REPTD. BY HER POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER
M/S SURAJ DWELLERS (PVT.) LTD.,
A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY HAVING
ITS REGISTERD OFFICE AT SURAJ GANGA ARCADE NO.
TH ND
332/7, 14 CROSS, 2 BLOCK,
JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU 560011.
REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR,
SRI. L SURESH
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI SHIVANANDA S., ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS ADDL. CHIEF SECRETARY,
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,
VIDHANA SUDHA,
BENGALURU 560001
2. THE COMMISSIONER
BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGRA PALIKE,
NR SQUARE,
BENGALURU 560002
67
3. THE JOINT DIRECTOR
TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (NORTH),
BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGRA PALIKE,
NR SQUARE,
BENGALURU 560002
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI R. SRINIVAS GOWDA, AGA FOR R1
(PHYSICAL HEARING)
SRI SREENIDHI V. AND SMT. SINCHANA M.R.,
ADVOCATES FOR R2 AND R3 (PHYSICAL HEARING))
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE CIRCULAR ISSUED BY R-2 DATED 4.9.2015
LEVYING FEES FOR ISSUE OF I.T / B.T BUILDING
LICENSE / SANCTION PLAN, AS CONTAINED IN ANNEX-G,
AND THE DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED BY R-3 DATED
5.5.2018 DIRECTING THE PETITIONER TO DEPOSIT A SUM
OF RS. 45,63,000/- TOWARDS GROUND RENT, GST, PLAN
COPY FEE, TANK REJUVENATION FEE, AS CONTAINED IN
ANNEX-H ETC.
IN WRIT PETITION No.25850/2018
BETWEEN
SOBHA LIMITED
(FORMERLY SOBHA DEVELOPERS LIMITED)
A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES
ACT, 1956 AND HAVING ITS REGISTERED AND
CORPORATE OFFICE AT SOBHA, SARJAPUR-
MARTHAHALLI OUTER RING ROAD(ORR)
DEVERABEESANAHALLI
BELLANDUR POST
BENGALURU - 560103
REPRESENTED BY ITS
AUTHORISED SIGNATORY
68
MR RAGHAVENDRA N R
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI KEMPEGOWDA FOR M/S.ANUP S. SHAH LAW
FIRM, ADVOCATES (VIDEO CONFERENCING))
AND
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
TH
4 FLOOR, VIKAS SOUDHA
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU - 560001
2. BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE
N R SQUARE, BENGALURU - 560002
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER
3. JOINT DIRECTOR
TOWN PLANNING(NORTH)
BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE
N R SQUARE,
BENGALURU – 560002
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI R. SRINIVAS GOWDA, AGA FOR R1 (PHYSICAL
HEARING)
SRI SREENIDHI V. AND SMT. SINCHANA M.R.,
ADVOCATES FOR R2 AND R3 (PHYSICAL HEARING))
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
ISSUE DIRECTION DECLARING THE BYELAW 3.9 IN THE
BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE BUILDING BYE-LAWS,
2003 (ANNEXUER-A) AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL, ILLEGAL
AND ULTRA VIRES ETC.
69
IN WRIT PETITION No.27638/2018
BETWEEN
M/S BRIGADE ENTERPRISES LIMITED
A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE
PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT
TH TH
29 AND 30 FLOORS,
WTC-BENGALURU
MALLESHWARAM-RAJAJINAGAR
BENGALURU – 560 55
REPRESENTED BY ITS
AUTHORISED SIGNATORY,
SRI UDAYA KUMAR.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI SHIVANANDA S, ADVOCATE (VIDEO
CONFERENCING))
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS
ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY,
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,
VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001.
2. THE COMMISSIONER
BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
N.R.SQUARE, BENGALURU-560 002.
3. THE JOINT DIRECTOR
TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (NORTH)
BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE
N.R.SQUARE, BENGALURU-560 002.
... RESPONDENTS
70
(BY SRI R.SRINIVAS GOWDA, AGA FOR R1(PHYSICAL
HEARING);
SRI SREENIDHI V AND SRI SINCHANA M.R.,
ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3 (PHYSICAL HEARING))
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH
THE CIRCULAR ISSUED BY R-2 DATED 4.9.2015 LEVYING
FEES FOR ISSUE OF I.T / B.T BUILDING LICENSE /
SANCTION PLAN, AS CONTAINED IN ANNEX-F, AND THE
DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED BY R-3 DATED 12.6.2018 AS
CONTAINED IN ANNEX-K AND ETC.,
IN WRIT PETITION No.28692/2018
BETWEEN
L & T CONSTRUCTIONS EQUIPMENT
LIMITED-REALTY DIVISION
( A WHOLLY OWNED SUBSIDIARY OF
LARSEN & TOURBO LIMITED)
A COMPANY UNDER THE COMPANIES
ACT, 2013
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT L & T HOUSE,
N.M.MARG, BALLARD ESTATE,
MUMBAI – 400 001
MAHARASHTRA, INDIA
HAVING ITS CORPORATE OFFICE AT
BELLARY ROAD, BYATARAYANAPURA,
BENGALURU – 560 092
REPRESENTED BY ITS
AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY AND BUSINESS HEAD
MR.K.CHANDRASHEKAR
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI SHRAVANTH ARYA TANDRA FOR SMT. SANJANTHI
SAJAN POOVAYYA, ADVOCATES)
71
AND
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
TH
4 FLOOR, VIKASA SOUDHA,
AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU – 560 001
KARNATAKA, INDIA.
2. BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER,
N.R.SQUARE, BENGALURU – 560 002
KARNATAKA, INDIA.
3. JOINT DIRECTOR (TOWN PLANNING-NORTH)
BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
N.R.SQUARE, BENGALURU – 560 002,
KARNATAKA, INDIA.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI R.SRINIVAS GOWDA, AGA FOR R1 (PHYSICAL
HEARING);
SRI SREENIDHI V., AND SMT. SINCHANA M.R.,
ADVOCATES FOR R2 AND R3(PHYSICAL HEARING))
THIS WRIT PETITION IS` FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING
TO DECLARE THAT RESPONDENT NO.3 IS NOT
EMPOWERED TO DEMAND OR RECEIVE GROUND RENT
WHEN PUBLIC LAND IS NOT USED FOR STOCKING OR
STORING OF THE BUILDING MATERIALS AND ETC.,
IN WRIT PETITION No.29867/2018
BETWEEN
1. SRI. A. NARASIMHAN
72
SON OF LATE SRI C. ARUNACHALAM
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
ND TH
RESIDING AT NO.974-A, 2 MAIN, 4 BLOCK,
RAJAJINAGAR. BENGALURU-560010
2. SRI N VIJAYA
WIFE OF SRI A NARASIMHAAN
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,
ND TH
RESIDING AT NO.974-A, 2 MAIN, 4 BLOCK,
RAJAJINAGAR BENGALURU-560 010
3. SRI A ARUMUGAM
SON OF LATE SRI C ARUNACHALAM
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.974-B,
ND TH
2 MAIN, 4 BLOCK,
RAJAJINAGAR,
BENGALURU-560 010
REP. BY THEIR POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER
BRIGADE ENTERPRISES LTD
TH TH
29 & 30 FLOOR, WORLD TRADE CENTER
26/1, BRIGADE GATEWAY
DR RAJKUMAR ROAD, MALLESWARAM
RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560055
REP BY SRI UDAYA KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI SAMMITH S., ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS
ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BENGALURU-560 001
73
2. THE COMMISSIONER
BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE
N R SQUARE, BENGALURU-560 002
3. THE JOINT DIRECTOR
TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (NORTH)
BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
N R CIRCLE, BENGALURU-560 002
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI R.SRINIVAS GOWDA, AGA FOR R1 (PHYSICAL
HEARING);
SRI SREENIDHI V., AND SMT. SINCHANA M.R.,
ADVOCATES FOR R2 AND R3(PHYSICAL HEARING))
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH
ND
THE CIRCULAR ISSUED BY THE 2 RESPONDENT
COMMISSIONER DATED 4.9.2015 LEVYING FEES FOR
ISSUE OF I.T./B.T BUILDING LICENSE/SANCTION PLAN AS
CONTAINED IN ANNEXURE-F, AND THE DEMAND NOTICE
ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT - ADDITIONAL
DIRECTOR DATED 06.07.2018, AS CONTAINED IN
ANNEXURE-G ETC.
IN WRIT PETITION No.30066/2018
BETWEEN
1. DR. S V PRASAD
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
S/O LATE S VENKATESU
NARAYANADRI HOSPITAL
RENIGUNTA ROAD,
TIRUPATHI-517 506
2. SMT AMRUTHAVALLI
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
74
W/O S V PRASAD,
NARAYANADRI HOSPITAL
RENIGUNTA ROAD,
TIRUPATHI-517 506
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI VIVEKANANDA T.P., ADVOCATE)
AND
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
TH
4 FLOOR, VIKAS SOUDHA,
DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU - 560 001
2. BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE
N.R.SQUARE, BENGALURU - 560 002
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER
3. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR (TOWN PLANNING)
RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR ZONE,
BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 098.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI R.SRINIVAS GOWDA, AGA FOR R1 (PHYSICAL
HEARING);
SRI SREENIDHI V., AND SMT. SINCHANA M.R.,
ADVOCATES FOR R2 AND R3(PHYSICAL HEARING))
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH
THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 6.4.2018 AT ANNEX-F
ISSUED BY R-3 ONLY IN SO FAR AS THE DEMAND OF
RS.16,84,884/- TOWARDS THE GROUND RENT AND GST
OF RS.3,03,272/- ETC.
75
IN WRIT PETITION No.30415/2018
BETWEEN
H V VENTURE PROJECTS PVT LTD
(UNIT OF HABITAT VENTURES)
#26, SHANKARMUTT ROAD
BASAVANAGUDI
BENGALURU-560 004
REP BY ITS DIRECTOR
MR. BHASKAR T. NAGENDRAPPA
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI SAMMITH S., ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS
ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BENGALURU-560 001
2. THE COMMISSIONER
BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE
N R SQUARE,
BENGALURU-560 002
3. THE JOINT DIRECTOR
TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (SOUTH)
BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE
N R CIRCLE,
BENGALURU-560 002.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI R.SRINIVAS GOWDA, AGA FOR R1;
SRI SREENIDHI V., AND SMT.SINCHANA M.R.,
ADVOCATES FOR R2 AND R3 (PHYSICAL HEARING))
76
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH
THE CIRCULAR ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
COMMISSIONER DATED 4.9.2015 LEVYING FEES FOR
ISSUES OF MULTI STORIED BUILDING
LICENSE/SANCTION PLAN AS CONTAINED IN ANNEXURE-
J, AND THE DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 3RD
RESPONDENT - ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR DATED
06.07.2018, AS CONTAINED IN ANNEXURE-K ETC.
IN WRIT PETITION No.30867/2018
BETWEEN
M/S CORNERSTONE BAY EAST DEVELOPERS PVT LTD
OFFICE AT: CORNERSTONE HOUSE,
# 583, 9TH MAIN, OFF CMH ROAD,
INDIRANAGAR I STAGE, BENGALURU - 38
REP BY ITS GPA HOLDER,
M/S MYSORE PROJECTS PVT LTD,
REGD.OFFICE AT 29TH FLOOR,
WORLD TRADE CENTRE,
BRIGADE GATEWAY CAMPUS,
26/1, DR.RAJKUMAR ROAD, MALLESHWARAM,
RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 055
REP. BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY,
MR. UDAYA KUMAR A.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI SAMMITH S., ADVOCATE )
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS
ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY,
HOME DEPARTMENT,
77
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU-560001
2. THE COMMISSIONER
BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
N.R.SQUARE, BENGALURU-560002
3. THE JOINT DIRECTOR
TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (NORTH)
BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKDE,
N.R.CIRCLE,
BENGALURU-560002
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI R.SRINIVAS GOWDA, AGA FOR R1;
SRI SREENIDHI V., AND SMT.SINCHANA M.R.,
ADVOCATES FOR R2 AND R3 (PHYSICAL HEARING))
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE CIRCULAR ISSUED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT COMMISSIONER DATED 4.9.2015 LEVYING
FEES FOR ISSUE OF I.T/B.T BUILDING
LICENSE/SANCTION PLAN AS CONTAINED IN ANNEXURE-
E, AND THE DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT COMMISSIONER DATED 11.07.2018, AS
CONTAINED IN ANNEXURE-F ETC.
IN WRIT PETITION No.33013/2018
BETWEEN
SOBHA LIMITED
(FORMERLY SOBHA DEVELOPERS LIMITED)
A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER
THE COMPANIES ACT 1956
AND HAVING ITS REGISTERED AND
78
CORPORATE OFFICE AT
SOBHA SARJAPUR MARTHAHALLI
OUTER RING ROAD (ORR)
DEVERABEESANAHALLI BELLANDUR POST
BENGALURU – 560 103
REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY
MR RAGHAVENDRA N R
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI SANJAY NAIR, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,
4TH FLOOR, VIKAS SOUDHA
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU - 560 001
2. BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE
N R SQUARE, BENGALURU - 560 002
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER
3. JOINT DIRECTOR
TOWN PLANNING (SOUTH)
BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE
N R SQUARE, BENGALURU - 560 002
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI R.SRINIVAS GOWDA, AGA FOR R1;
SRI SREENIDHI V., AND SMT.SINCHANA M.R.,
ADVOCATES FOR R2 AND R3 (PHYSICAL HEARING))
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
DECLARE THE BYE-LAWS 3.9 IN THE BANGALORE
MAHANAGARA PALIKE BUILDING BYE-LAWS, 2003
(ANNEXURE-A) AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL, ILLEGAL AND
ULTRA VIRES ETC.
79
IN WRIT PETITION No.33406/2018
BETWEEN
THE SOCIETY OF THE SERVANTS OF
THE HOLY SPIRIT,
A SOCIETY REGISTERED UNDER THE
KARNATAKA SOCIETIES REGISTRATION ACT
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE
AT CONVENT OF THE HOLY SPIRIT,
BANNERGHATTA ROAD,
BENGALURU – 560 076.
REPRESENTED BY ITS GPA HOLDER
M/S ASHED PROPERTIES AND INVESTMENTS (PVT) LTD.,
A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER PROVISIONS
OF INDIAN COMPANIES ACT
HAVING REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.154/1
SAMEER HOUSE, WHEELER ROAD
FRASER TOWN, BENGALURU - 560005
REPRESENTED BY ITS
MANAGING DIRECTOR: MR SAMEER A KHAN
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI VIVEKANANDA T.P., ADVOCATE)
AND
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
TH
4 FLOOR, VIKAS SOUDHA
DR AMBEDKAR VEEHDI
BENGALURU - 560001
2. THE BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE
N R SQUARE, BENGALURU - 560002
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER
80
3. THE JOINT DIRECTOR
TOWN PLANNING(SOUTH)
BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE
N R SQUARE, BENGALURU – 560002
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI R.SRINIVAS GOWDA, AGA FOR R1;
SRI SREENIDHI V., AND SMT.SINCHANA M.R.,
ADVOCATES FOR R2 AND R3 (PHYSICAL HEARING))
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH
THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 6.7.2018 AT ANNEX-E
ISSUED BY R-3 IN SO FAR AS THE DEMAND OF
RS.27,82,898/- TOWARDS THE GROUND RENT,
RS.5,00,922/- TOWARDS TDS ON GROUND REND AND
RS.54,35,859/- TOWARDS THE LICENSE FEE ETC.
IN WRIT PETITION No.34265/2018
BETWEEN
1. SRI C.THIMMA REDDY
S/O LATE CHIKKA ABBAIAH,
AGED 62 YEARS,
R/AT KUDLU VILLAGE,
SARJAPURA HOBLI,
ANEKAL TALUK,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.
2. SRI C. MUNI REDDY
S/O LATE CHIKKA ABBAIAH,
AGED 61 YEARS,
ND
R/AT NO.337, 2 CROSS,
ND
22 MAIN ROAD,
BTM LAYOUT,
BENGALURU – 560 076.
81
3. SMT.NAGARATHNAMMA
AGED 57 YEARS,
D/O LATE CHIKKA ABBAIAH,
W/O SRI KRISHNAMURTHY,
R/AT MUNNEKOLAL
MARATHAHALLI POST,
BENGALURU – 560 037.
4. SRI SUDARSHAN REDDY
AGED 60 YEARS,
S/O LAKSHMAIAH REDDY,
HUSBAND OF LATE BAGYAMMA,
R/AT NO.7, ROOPENA AGRAHARA,
KUDLU VILLAGE, SARJAPUR HOBLI,
BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK,
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT.
5. SMT.S.KAVITHA
AGED 33 YEARS,
D/O SUDARSHAN REDDY AND
LATE.SMT. BHAGYAMMA,
R/AT NO.7, ROOPENA AGARAHARA,
KUDLU VILLAGE, SARJAPUR HOBLI,
BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK,
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT.
6. SMT.S.MAMATHA
AGED 32 YEARS,
D/O SUDARSHAN REDDY AND
LATE SMT.BHAGYAMMA,
R/AT NO.7, ROOPENA AGRAHARA,
KUDLU VILLAGE, SARJAPUR HOBLI,
BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK,
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT.
REPRESENTED BY THEIR GPA HOLDER,
M/S. G.K.SHELTERS (P) LTD.,
A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER PROVISIONS
OF INDIAN COMPANIES ACT,
HAVING REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.27,
82
TH RD
9 MAIN ROAD, JAYANAGAR 3 BLOCK,
BENGALURU – 560 011
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,
SRI K.NARASIMHULU NAIDU.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI VIVEKANANDA T.P., ADVOCATE)
AND
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,
TH
4 FLOOR, VIKAS SOUDHA,
DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU – 560 001.
2. THE BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE
N.R.SQUARE,
BENGALURU – 560 002
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER.
3. THE JOINT DIRECTOR TOWN PLANNING (SOUTH)
BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
N.R.SQUARE,
BENGALURU – 560 002.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI R.SRINIVAS GOWDA, AGA FOR R1;
SRI SREENIDHI V., AND SMT.SINCHANA M.R.,
ADVOCATES FOR R2 AND R3 (PHYSICAL HEARING))
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH
THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 12.04.2018 AT
ANNEXURE-J ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3
DEMANDING A SUM OF RS.10,74,000/- TOWARDS THE
GROUND RENT AND ETC.,
83
IN WRIT PETITION No.35728/2018
BETWEEN
M. MR RAMAIAH
S/O LATE SRI RANGASWAMAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS,
RESIDING AT GOKULA HOUSE,
GOKULA MATHIKERE,
BENGALURU - 560 054.
REPRESENTED BY HIS GPA HOLDER,
M/S A & G ENTERPRISES,
REGD. OFFICE AT: SNS CHAMBER,
#239, SANKEY ROAD, BENGALURU - 80
REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER,
GAURAV AHUJA.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI SAMMITH S., ADVOCATE )
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS
ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY,
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU – 560 001.
2. THE COMMISSIONER
BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
N.R.SQUARE, BENGALURU – 560 002.
3. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR
TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (WEST)
BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
BHASHYAM PARK, SHESHADRIPURAM,
BENGALURU – 560 003.
... RESPONDENTS
84
(BY SRI R. SRINIVAS GOWDA, AGA FOR R1;
SRI SREENIDHI V., AND SMT.SINCHANA M.R.,
ADVOCATES FOR R2 AND R3 (PHYSICAL HEARING))
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
ND
QUASHING THE CIRCULAR ISSUED BY THE 2
RESPONDENT COMMISSIONER DATED 4.9.2015 LEVYING
FEES FOR ISSUE OF I.T/B/T BUILDING
LICENSE/SANCTION PLAN AS CONTAINED IN ANNEXURE-
RD
E, AND THE DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 3
RESPONDENT ASSISTANT DIRECTOR BEARING DEMAND
NOTICE DATED 13.07.2018, AS CONTAINED IN
ANNEXURE-F AND ETC.,
IN WRIT PETITION No.36017/2018
BETWEEN:
VASWANI ESTATES DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED
BEING A COMPANY INCORPORATED
UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT 1956
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT
NO.30, VICTORIA ROAD
BENALURU - 560 047.
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR
MR. ARUN A. ADVANI
... PETITIONER
(BY MS. NAYANTARA FOR SRI G. L. VISHWANATH,
ADVOCATES (PHYSICAL HEARING))
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
4TH FLOOR, VIKAS SOUDHA
85
AMBEDKAR VEEDI
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER
N.R.SQUARE
BENGALURU - 560 002.
3. JOINT DIRECTOR (TOWN PLANNING-NORTH)
BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE
N.R.SQUARE
BENGALURU - 560 002.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI R. SRINIVAS GOWDA, AGA FOR R1
SRI SREENIDHI V. AND SMT. SINCHANA M.R.,
ADVOCATES FOR R2 & R3 (PHYSICAL HEARING))
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH
THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 10.07.2018 AT ANNEXURE-J
ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.3 INSOFAR AS IT SEEKS TO
RECOVER RS.67,61,057/- AS GROUND RENT AND GST OF
RS.12,16,990/- AT THE RATE OF 18% LEVIED ON THE
GROUND RENT FROM THE PETITIONER COMPANY AND
ETC.,
IN WRIT PETITION No.41121/2018
BETWEEN
1. M/S ICKON PROJECTS
A PARTNERSHIP FIRM,
REGISTERED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF
PARTNERSHIP ACT, 1932 AND
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT :
ND
2 FLOOR, 11/2, NEW JAYADEVA HOSTEL
COMMERCIAL COMPLEX,
86
TH
5 MAIN ROAD, GANDHINAGAR,
BENGALURU – 560 009
REPRESENTED BY ITS POWER OF ATTORNEY
HOLDER: M/S SOBHA LIMITED.
2. M/S SOBHA LIMITED
(FORMERLY SOBHA DEVELOPERS LIMITED)
A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER
THE COMPANIES ACT 1956 AND HAVING ITS
REGISTERED AND CORPORATE OFFICE AT:
SOBHA, SARJAPUR-MARTHAHALLI OUTER RING
ROAD (ORR), DEVERABEESANAHALLI,
BELLANDUR POST,
BENGALURU - 560103
REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY
MR.RAGHAVENDRA N R
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI VEERESH R. BUDIHAL FOR M/S.ANUP S. SHAH
LAW FIRM, ADVOCATES)
AND
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,
TH
4 FLOOR, VIKAS SOUDHA,
AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU - 560001
2. BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE
N.R SQUARE,
BENGALURU - 560002
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER
3. JOINT DIRECTOR
TOWN PLANNING (SOUTH)
BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE
N.R SQUARE,
87
BENGALURU - 560002
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI R.SRINIVAS GOWDA, AGA FOR R1;
SRI SREENIDHI V. AND SMT.SINCHANA M.R.,
ADVOCATES FOR R2 AND R3 (PHYSICAL HEARING))
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
DECLARE THE BYELAWS 3.9 OF THE BANGALORE
MAHANAGARA PALIKE BUILDING BYE-LAWS 2003
(ANNEXURE-A) AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL, ILLEGAL AND
ULTRA VIRES ETC.
IN WRIT PETITION No.41409/2018
BETWEEN
1. OMAR FAROOK
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
S/O A SHAKOOR
2. SMT NASIMAFAROOK
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
W/O OMAR FAROOK
BOTH ARE RESIDING AT
TH
NO.315, 8 CROSS ROAD,
LAKSHMI ROAD
SHANTHINAGAR
BENGALURU - 560027
PETITIONERS ARE REPRESENTED BY THEIR
GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER
M/S BREN CORPORATION PVT LTD
THIRD FLOOR, BALAVANA,
PLOT NO.61, 5TH A BLOCK,
KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU - 560095
88
BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
SRI J BOOPESH REDDY
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI VIVEKANANDA T.P., ADVOCATE)
AND
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
4TH FLOOR, VIKASSOUDHA
DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU - 560001
2. THE BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE
N.R.SQUARE, BENGALURU - 560002
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER
3. THE JOINT DIRECTOR
TOWN PLANNING (NORTH)
BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARAPALIKE
N.R.SQUARE,
BENGALURU – 560002
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI R.SRINIVAS GOWDA, AGA FOR R1;
SRI SREENIDHI V. AND SMT.SINCHANA M.R.,
ADVOCATES FOR R2 AND R3 (PHYSICAL HEARING))
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE DEMAND NOTICE DTD: 7.9.2018 AT
ANNEXURE-F ISSUED BY THE R-3 IN SO FAR AS THE
DEMAND OF RS.33,28,989/- TOWARDS THE GROUND
RENT, RS.2,99,609/- + RS.2,99,609/- TOWARDS GST AND
RS.66,84,763/- TOWARDS LICENSE FEE ETC.
89
IN WRIT PETITION No.42748/2018
BETWEEN
SOBHA LIMITED
(FORMERLY SOBHA DEVELOPERS LIMITED)
A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER
THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956
AND HAVING ITS OFFICE AT
SARJAPUR-MARTHAHALLI OUTER RING ROAD (ORR)
DEVERABESANAHALLI, BELLANDUR POST
BENGALURU-560 103
REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY
MR RAGHAVENDRA N R
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI SANJAY NAIR, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS
ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
TH
4 FLOOR VIKAS SOUDHA
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560 001
2. BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE
N R SQUARE, BENGALURU-560 002
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER
3. JOINT DIRECTOR
TOWN PLANNING (NORTH)
BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE
ANNEX BUILDING N R SQUARE
BENGALURU-560 002
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI R.SRINIVAS GOWDA, AGA FOR R1;
90
SRI SREENIDHI V. AND SMT.SINCHANA M.R.,
ADVOCATES FOR R2 AND R3 (PHYSICAL HEARING))
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
DECLARE THE BYELAWS 3.9 OF THE BANGALORE
MAHANAGARA PALIKE BUILDING BYE-LAWS 2003 AT
ANNEX-A AS UN-CONSTITUTIONAL, ILLEGAL AND ULTRA
VIRES ETC.
IN WRIT PETITION No.45817/2018
BETWEEN
1. M/S. MEDA CONSTRUCTIONS
A PARTNERSHIP FIRM HAVING ITS REGISTERED
OFFICE AT H.NO.8-2-268/1/D/A
PLOT NO.7, AURORA COLONY,
ROAD NO.3 BANJARA HILLS,
HYDERABAD – 560 0034
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER
M.SAI KRISHNA REDDY.
2. M.RAGHUNADHA REDDY
S/O M.RAMA KRISHNA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
RESIDING AT H NO.8-2-416/A,
ROAD NO.4, BANJARA HILLS,
HYDERABAD – 560 034.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI SAMMITH S., ADVOCATE (PHYSICAL HEARING))
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS
ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY,
HOME DEPARTMENT,
91
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU – 560 001.
2. THE COMMISSIONER
BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
N.R.SQUARE, BENGALURU – 560 002.
3. THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR
TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (NORTH)
BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
N R SQUARE, BENGALURU – 560 002.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI R.SRINIVAS GOWDA, AGA FOR R1;
SRI SREENIDHI V. AND SMT.SINCHANA M.R.,
ADVOCATES FOR R2 AND R3 (PHYSICAL HEARING))
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE CIRCULAR ISSUED BY R-2 DATED 4.9.2015
LEVYING FEES FOR ISSUE OF I.T / B.T. BUILDING
LICENSE / SANCTION PLAN AS, AS CONTAINED IN ANNEX-
E, AND THE DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED BY R-3 DEMAND
NOTICE DATED 4.9.2018 VIDE ANNEX-F AND ETC.,
IN WRIT PETITION No.52417/2018
BETWEEN
1. SRI VIJAYARAGHAVA REDDY
SON OF LATE SRI B.NARAYANA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS.
2. SRI N.RAVINDRA REDDY
SON OF LATE SRI B.NARAYANA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS.
92
3. SRI N.RAMESH
SON OF LATE SRI B.NARAYANA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS.
PETITIONERS 1 TO 3 ARE
RESIDING AT NO.61, SEETHARAM PALYA,
MAHADEVAPURA POST,
BENGALURU – 560 048.
REPRESENTED BY THEIR
POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER
M/S BRIGADE ENTERPRISES LTD.,
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT
TH TH
29 AND 30 FLOOR, WORLD TRADE CENTER,
26/1, BRIGADE GATEWAY,
DR. RAJKUMAR ROAD, MALLESWARAM,
RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 055
REP. BY MR. UDAYA KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI SAMMITH S., ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS
ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY
HOME DEPARTMENT,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. THE COMMISSIONER
BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
N.R.SQUARE,
BENGALURU – 560 002.
93
3. THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR
TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (NORTH)
BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
N.R.SQUARE, BENGALURU – 560 002.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI R.SRINIVAS GOWDA, AGA FOR R1
SRI SREENIDHI V., AND SMT.SINCHANA M.R.,
ADVOCATES FOR R2 AND R3 (PHYSICAL HEARING))
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE CIRCULAR ISSUED BY THE R-2
COMMISSIONER DTD:4.9.2015 LEVYING FEES FOR ISSUE
OF OCCUPANCY CERTIFICATE, AS CONTAINED IN
ANNEXURE-E, AND THE DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED BY THE
R-3 ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR DTD:14.11.2018 AS
CONTAINED IN ANNEXURE-H AND ETC.,
IN WRIT PETITION No.53220/2018
BETWEEN
L & T CONSTRUCTIONS EQUIPMENT LIMITED –
REALTY DIVISION
( A WHOLLY OWNED SUBSIDIARY OF
LARSEN & TOUBRO LIMITED)
A COMPANY UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT 2013,
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT
L & T HOUSE, N M MARG,
BALLARD ESTATE,
MUMBAI - 400 001
MAHARASHTRA INDIA,
HAVING ITS CORPORATE OFFICE AT
94
BELLARY ROAD, BYATARAYANAPURA,
BENGALURU-560092
REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY,
MR K CHANDRASHEKAR.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI SUDHEER H.M. AND SRI S. GURU PRASANNA,
FOR M/S. ANUP S. SHAH LAW FIRM, ADVOCATES)
AND
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,
4TH FLOOR, VIKAS SOUDHA,
AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU-560001
KARNATAKA INDIA.
2. BRUHAT BANGALORE MHANAGARA PALIKE
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER,
N.R.SQUARE, BENGALURU-560002
KARNATAKA, INDIA.
3. JOINT DIRECTOR (TOWN PLANNING -NORTH)
BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
N R SQUARE, BENGALURU-560002
KARNATAKA, INDIA
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI R.SRINIVAS GOWDA, AGA FOR R1
SRI SREENIDHI V., AND SMT.SINCHANA M.R.,
ADVOCATES FOR R2 AND R3 (PHYSICAL HEARING))
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
DECLARE THAT R-3 IS NOT EMPOWERED TO DEMAND OR
RECEIVE GROUND RENT WHEN PUBLIC LAND IS NOT
95
USED FOR STOCKING OR STORING OF THE BUILDING
MATERIALS ETC.
IN WRIT PETITION No.57548/2018
BETWEEN
M/S SOBHA LIMITED
(FORMERLY SOBHA DEVELOPERS LIMITED)
A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER
THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 AND HAVING ITS
REGISTERED AND CORPORATE OFFICE AT:
"SOBHA", SARJAPUR-MARATAHALLI
OUTER RING ROAD (ORR),
DEVERABEESANAHALLI, BELLANDUR POST,
BENGALURU-560103.
REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY,
MR.RAGHAVENDRA N R .
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI SANJAY NAIR AND SRI KEMPEGOWDA FOR
M/S. ANUP S. SHAH LAW FIRM, ADVOCATES)
AND
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,
4TH FLOOR, VIKAS SOUDHA,
AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU-560001.
2. BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE
N.R.SQUARE,
BENGALURU-560002.
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER.
96
3. JOINT DIRECTOR
TOWN PLANNING (SOUTH)
BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
N.R.SQUARE, BENGALURU-560002.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI R.SRINIVAS GOWDA, AGA FOR R1
SRI SREENIDHI V., AND SMT.SINCHANA M.R.,
ADVOCATES FOR R2 AND R3 (PHYSICAL HEARING))
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
DECLARE THE BYE LAW NO.3.9 OF THE BANGALORE
MAHANAGARA PALIKE BUILDING BYE-LAWS 2003
(ANNEXURE-A) AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL, ILLEGAL AND
ULTRA VIRES ETC.
IN WRIT PETITION No.57893/2018
BETWEEN
1. PURAVANKARA LIMITED
(FORMERLY PURAVANKARA PROJECTS LTD)
A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE
PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956
HAVIANG ITS REGISTERED OFFICE
AT 130/1, ULSOOR ROAD,
BENGALURU – 566 043.
2. MR.A.RAMA REDDY
S/O A.R.ASHWATHNARAYANA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
TH
RESIDING AT NO.453, 15 CROSS ROAD,
LAKKASANDRA LAYOUT,
BENGALURU – 560 030.
97
3. MR.H.P.RAMA REDDY
S/O LATE CHIKKAAPPAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS,
TH
RESIDING AT NO.255, 36 CROSS ROAD,
TH TH
5 MAIN ROAD, 4 BLOCK,
JAYANAGAR,
BENGALURU – 560 011.
4. MR.KIRAN V
S/O MR.VENUGOPAL REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.1140,
TH
17 CROSS ROAD,
TH
7 SECTOR, HSR LAYOUT,
BENGALURU – 560 034.
5. MR.PRANEETH P
S/O MR.N.C.PUTTAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
R/AT NO.690/H-1,
TH
14 MAIN, OPP. VET SCHOOL,
ND
2 PHASE, J P NAGAR,
BENGALURU – 560 078.
6. MR.R.BABU REDDY
S/O MR.RAGHURAM REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.690/H-1,
TH
14 MAIN, OPP. VET SCHOOL,
ND
2 PHASE, JP NAGAR,
BENGALURU – 560 078.
ALL ARE REPRESENTED BY THEIR GPA
PURVA STAR PROPERTIES PVT. LIMITED,
(A WHOLLY OWNED SUBSIDIARY OF
PURAVANKARA PROJECTS LTD.,)
NO.130/1, ULSOOR ROAD,
98
BENGALURU – 560 042
REPRESENTED BY ITS
AUTHORISED SIGNATORY
B.PRAVEEN KUMAR.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI JOSEPH ANTHONY, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
VIKASA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU – 560 001
REPRESENTED BY
THE CHIEF SECRETARY.
2. BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE
HUDSON CIRCLE,
BENGALURU – 560 027
REPRESENTED BY
THE COMMISSIONER.
3. JOINT DIRECTOR (TOWN PLANNING)
BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE
N.R.CIRCLE, BENGALURU – 560 002.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI R.SRINIVAS GOWDA, AGA FOR R1;
SRI SREENIDHI V., AND SMT.SINCHANA M.R.,
ADVOCATES FOR R2 & R3 (PHYSICAL HEARING))
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH
BYE-LAW 3.9 OF THE BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE
BUILDING BYE-LAWS, 2003 AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL,
ARBITRARY, ILLEGAL AND ULTRA-VIRES AND ETC.,
99
IN WRIT PETITION No.15/2019
BETWEEN
SAPTHAGIRI BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS
REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER
SRI V ANANDA
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
R/AT NO.119, SY.NO.17
8TH CROSS, 30TH MAIN
BSK 2ND STAGE
BENGALURU-560 070
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI VASANTHAPPA, ADVOCATE)
AND
1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
4TH FLOOR, VIKASSOUDHA
AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU-560 001
2 . THE COMMISSIONER
BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE
N R SQUARE
BENGALURU-560 002
3 . JOINT DIRECTOR
TOWN PLANNING BENGALURU SOUTH
BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE
N R SQUARE
BENGALURU-560 002
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI R SRINIVAS GOWDA, AGA FOR R-1,
SRI SREENIDHI V AND SMT.SINCHANA M.R.,
ADVOCATES FOR R2 AND R3 (PHYSICAL HEARING))
100
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT, DATED 06.07.18
MARKED AS ANNEXURE-G TO THIS WRIT PETITION AND
ISSUE DIRECTION TO THE R-2 AND 3 TO ISSUE SANCTION
PLAN.
IN WRIT PETITION No.59/2019
BETWEEN
1 . SRI KRISHANAMA RAJU
S/O K RAMARAJU
AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS
2 . SRI K PRAVEEN RAJU
S/O K R KRISHNAMA RAJU
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
3 . SMT V GOWRAMMA
W/O LATE K R NARAYANA RAJU
AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS
4 . SRI K N MAHESH
S/O LATE K R NARAYANA RAJU
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
PETITIONER NOS.1 TO 4 ARE
ALL RESIDING AT 144
TH
12 CROSS,
J P NAGAR II PHASE
BENGALURU-560 078
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI SAMMITH.S., ADVOCATE)
AND
1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS ADDITIONAL
101
CHIEF SECRETARY
HOME DEPARTMENT
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BENGALURU-560 001
2 . THE COMMISSIONER
BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANGARA PALIKE
N R SQUARE
BENGALURU-560 002
3 . THE JOINT DIRECTOR
TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (SOUTH)
BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE
N R SQUARE
BENGALURU-560 002
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI R SRINIVAS GOWDA, AGA FOR R1,
SRI SREENIDHI V & SMT SINCHANA M.R., ADVOCATES
FOR R2 & R3 (PHYSICAL HEARING))
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE CIRCULAR ISSUED BY THE R-2 DATED
4.9.2015 LEVYING FEES FOR ISSUE OF BUILDING
LICENSE / SANCTIONPLAN AS, AS THE R-3 DATED
12.12.2018 VIDE ANNEX-G & ETC.,
IN WRIT PETITION No.529/2019
BETWEEN
M/S VENKATESHWARA DISTILLERIES
A PARTNERSHIP FIRM HAVING ITS
REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.29/A
KHB INDUSTRIAL AREA
YELAHANKA NEW TOWN
BENGALURU-560 064
102
REPRESENTED BY ITS
POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER
M/S DSR INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.
A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY HAVING ITS
REGISTERED OFFICE AT DSR TRANQUIL
PLOT NO.901, #101, AYYAPPA SOCIETY MAIN ROAD
MADHAPUR, HYDERABAD-500 081
REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY
MR K S SATYANARAYANA REDDY
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI SAMMITH S., ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS
ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY
HOME DEPARTMENT
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BENGALURU-560 001
2. THE COMMISSIONER
BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE
N R SQUARE, BENGALURU-560 002
3. THE JOINT DIRECTOR
TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (NORTH)
BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE
N R SQUARE, BENGALURU-560 002
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI R.SRINIVAS GOWDA, AGA FOR R1
SRI SREENIDHI V., AND SMT.SINCHANA M.R.,
ADVOCATES FOR R2 AND R3 (PHYSICAL HEARING))
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE CIRCULAR ISSUED BY THE R-2
COMMISSIONER DTD: 4.9.2015 LEVYING FEES FOR ISSUE
103
OF BUILDING LICENSE/SANCTION PLAN AS CONTAINED
IN ANNEXURE-E, AND THE DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED BY
THE R-3 ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR DTD:14.12.2018 AS
CONTAINED IN ANNEXURE-F ETC.
IN WRIT PETITION No.1281/2019
BETWEEN
1. M/S DSR INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.,
A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY HAVING ITS
REGISTERED OFFICE AT DSR TRANQUIL,
PLOT NO. 901 # 101,
AYYAPPA SOCIETY MAIN ROAD,
MADHAPUR, HYDERABAD – 500 081
REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY,
MR.K.S.SATYANARAYANA REDDY.
2. SRI KRISHNA PRASUNA HOMES PVT. LTD.,
A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY HAVING ITS
REGISTERED OFFICE AT
ROAD NO.44, JUBILEE HILLS,
HYDERABAD – 500 034
REPRESENTED BY ITS
AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY,
MR.V.KRISHNA REDDY.
3. SRI M. VENKAT KRISHNA REDDY
S/O LATE M.RAMACHANDRA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
RESIDING AT PLOT NO.91/B,
ROAD NO.2, ‘SAGAR SOCIETY’, BANJARA HILLS,
HYDERABAD – 500 034.
REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER
PETITIONER NO.1
4. SMT. YARRAMREDDY SYAMALAMMA
104
W/O SRI Y. HARAGOPAL REDDY
AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS,
RESIDING AT KOTTUR VILLAGE,
INDUKURPET MANDAL
NELLORE DISTRICT-524 314
REPRESENTED BY POWER OF
ATTORNEY HOLDER PETITIONER NO.1.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI SAMMITH S., ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS
ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY,
HOME DEPARTMENT,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU – 560 001.
2. THE COMMISSIONER
BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
N.R.SQUARE, BENGALURU – 560 002.
3. THE JOINT DIRECTOR
TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (NORTH),
BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
N.R.SQUARE, BENGALURU – 560 002.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI R.SRINIVAS GOWDA, AGA FOR R1(PHYSICAL
HEARING);
SRI SREENIDHI V AND SMT.SINCHANA M.R.,
ADVOCATES FOR R2 AND R3 (PHYSICAL HEARING))
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE CIRCULAR ISSUED BY R-2 COMMISSIONER
105
DATED 4/9/2015 LEVYING FEES FOR ISSUE OF BUILDING
LICENSE/SANCTION PLAN AS, AS CONTAINED IN
ANNEXURE-E, AND THE DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED BY R-3
ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR DATED 28/11/2018, AS
CONTAINED IN ANNEXURE-F AND ETC.,
IN WRIT PETITION No.1705/2019
BETWEEN
1 . V. S. BALASUBRAMANYAM
AGED 83 YEARS,
S/O LATE V S SHESHA IYER
2 . SMT KALAVATI
AGED 60 YEARS,
W/O V S BALASUBRAMANYAM
BOTH ARE RESIDING AT NO.13
TH ST
4 MAIN ROAD, 1 CROSS, CHAMARAJPET
BENGALURU-560 027
PETITIONERS ARE REPRESENTED BY THIER
GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER
M/S MBR HOMES PVT LTD.,
ND TH
NO.1, 2 FLOOR, 39 F CROSS,
TH TH
18 MAIN, JAYANAGAR, 4 T BLOCK,
BENGALURU-560 041
BY ITS DIRECTOR SRI RAJAT PRASAD
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI VIVEKANANDA T.P., ADVOCATE)
AND
1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
TH
4 FLOOR, VIKAS SOUDHA
106
DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU-560 001
2 . THE BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE
N R SQUARE
BENGALURU-560 002
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISIONER
3 . THE JOINT DIRECTOR
TOWN PLANNING (SOUTH)
BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE
N R SQUARE
BENGALURU-560 002
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI R SRINIVAS GOWDA, AGA FOR R-1,
SRI SREENIDHI V AND SMT.SINCHANA M.R.,
ADVOCATES FOR R2 AND R3 (PHYSICAL HEARING))
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH
THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 09.01.2019 AT ANNEXURE-
E ISSUED BY THE R-3 ONLY IN SO FAR AS THE DEMAND
OF RS.59,37,300/- TOWARDS THE GROUND RENT AND
GST OF RS.10,68,714/- AND SCRUTINY FEE OF
RS.2,96,865/- & ETC.,
IN WRIT PETITION No.7040/2019
BETWEEN
M/S. REGULUS DEVELOPERS PVT LTD
A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER PROVISIONS OF
COMPANIES ACT 2013,
HAVING REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO 3,
LAVELLE ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560001
107
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR
SRI B V BHARATH
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI T P VIVEKANANDA, ADVOCATE)
AND
1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
4TH FLOOR, VIKAS SOUDHA
DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU - 560001
2 . THE BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE
N R SQUARE
BENGALURU - 560002
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER
3 . THE JOINT DIRECTOR
TOWN PLANNING (NORTH)
BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE
N R SQUARE
BENGALURU - 560002
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI R SRINIVAS GOWDA, AGA FOR R1,
SRI SREENIDHI V & SMT SINCHANA M.R., ADVOCATES
FOR R2 & R3 (PHYSICAL HEARING))
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE DEMAND NOTICE DTD.7.2.2019 AT
ANNEXURE-D ISSUED BY THE R-3 IN SO FAR AS THE
DEMAND OF RS.4,24,344.00 TOWARDS SCRUTINY FEE,
RS.84,86,874.00 TOWARDS LICENSE FEE, RS.78,68,545.00
TOWARDS GROUND RENT GST.
108
IN WRIT PETITION No.9699/2019
BETWEEN
1. SOUL SPACE PROJECTS LIMITED
A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE
PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES ACT,
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT ‘SOUL SPACE PARADIGM’
TH
4 FLOOR, NEAR HOTEL PARK PLAZA,
OUTER RING ROAD, MARATHAHALLI,
BENGALURU : 560 037 HEREIN
REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY
SRI D.K.SHARMA
S/O LATE RAM GOPAL SHARMA,
HINDU, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS.
2. SRI N.S.NANJAPPA REDDY
S/O LATE SHAMAIAH REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 85 YEARS.
3. SMT.ROJAMMA ALIAS SAROJAMMA
W/O NANJAPPA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS.
4. SRI BABU REDDY
S/O NANJAPPA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS.
5. SMT. SUNDANDA
D/O NANJAPPA REDDY,
AGED 54 YEARS.
6. SRI VISHWANATH REDDY AND
S/O NANJAPPA REDDY
AGED 51 YEARS.
7. SRI SURESH
S/O NANJAPPA REDDY
AGED 49 YEARS
109
ALL RESIDENT OF DODDANEKUNDI VILLAGE
VARTHUR HOBLI-3, BENGALURU EAST TALUK
PETITIONER NO.2 TO 7 HEREIN ARE
REPRESENTED BY THEIR
GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER
MR D.K.SHARMA
S/O LATE SRI RAM GOPAL SHARMA,
AGED 49 YEARS.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI S.GANESH SHENOY, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,
MS BUILDING, DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU – 560 001.
.
2. BRUHATH BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE
N.R.SQUARE, BENGALURU: 560 002
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER.
3. THE JOINT DIRECTOR (TOWN PLANNING NORTH)
BRUHATH BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
N.R.SQUARE, BENGALURU 560 002.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI R.SRINIVAS GOWDA, AGA FOR R1;
SRI SREENIDHI V., AND SMT.SINCHANA M.R.,
ADVOCATES FOR R2 AND R3 (PHYSICAL HEARING))
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH
THE DEMAND NOTICE DTD:14.2.2019 DTD: 14.2.2019 AT
110
ANNEXURE-D ISSUED BY THE R-3 IN SO FAR AS THE
DEMAND OF RS.29,30,603-00 TOWARD THE GROUND
RENT AND OF RS.31,60,897-00-00 TOWARDS LICENSE
FEE AND ETC.,
IN WRIT PETITION No.9940/2019
BETWEEN
1. M/S DSR INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.,
A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY HAVING ITS
REGISTERED OFFICE AT DSR TRANQUIL
PLOT NO.901, #101,
AYYAPPA SOCIETY MAIN ROAD,
MADHAPUR,
HYDERABAD – 500 081.
REPRESENTED BY ITS
AUTHORISED SIGNATORY
MR K.S.SATYANARAYANA REDDY.
2. SRI M.VENKAT KRISHNA REDDY
S/O LATE M.RAMACHANDRA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
RESIDING AT PLOT NO.99/B, SAGAR
CO- OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY,
ROAD NO.2, BANJARA HILLS,
HYDERABAD-500034
3. SRI K.S.SATYANARAYANA REDDY
S/O LATE SARREDDY
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
RESIDING AT ROW HOUSE NO.141,
DSR ELITE, MAHADEVPURA
BENGALURU – 560 048.
4. SMT. P. SUSHILAMMA
W/O LATE SRI R KANTHARAJU SHETTY
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
RESIDING AT SRI BALAJI STORES
111
ST
1 MAIN ROAD, MEDAHALLI VILLAGE
VIRGO NAGAR POST
BENGALURU - 560 049.
5. SRI BALAJI
S/O LATE SRI R.KANTHARAJU SHETTY
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
RESIDING AT SRI BALAJI STORES
ST
1 MAIN ROAD, MEDAHALLI VILLAGE
VIRGO NAGAR POST
BENGALURU – 560 049.
PETITIONER NOS.2 TO 5 REPRESENTED BY
THEIR POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER,
PETITIONER NO.1,
M/S DSR INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.,
A PRIVATED LIMITED COMPANY HAVING ITS
REGISTERED OFFICE AT
DSR TRANQUIL, PLOT NO.901
#101, AYYAPPA SOCIETY MAIN ROAD,
MADHAPUR, HYDERABAD – 500 0081
REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY
MR K.S.SATYANARAYANA REDDY.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI SAMMITH S., ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
LABOUR DEPARTMENT,
VIKASA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU – 560 001.
2. THE UNDERSECRETARY
MINISTRY OF LABOUR,
VIKASA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU – 560 001.
112
3. THE COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD,
KUMARAPARK WEST
BENGALURU-560020
4. TECHNICAL ADVISOR-4
BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD
KUMARAPARK WEST
BENGALURU – 560 020.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SRINIVAS GOWDA, AGA FOR R1 AND R2;
SRI SREENIDHI V., AND SMT.SINCHANA M.R.,
ADVOCATES FOR R3 AND R4 (PHYSICAL HEARING))
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE GOVERNMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE R-2
DATED 18.01.2007 AND THE CORRIGENDUM THEREIN
DATED 28.02.2007 MANDATING UPFRONT COLLECTION
OF LABOUR WELFARE CESS, AS CONTAINED
INANNEXURE-L AND THE DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED BY
THE R-4 ON 14.12.2018, AS CONTAINED IN ANNEXURE-M
INSOFAR AS THE LABOUR WELFARE CESS AND ETC.,
IN WRIT PETITION No.11063/2019
BETWEEN
M/S. NANDI HOUSING PVT. LTD.,
A COMPANY INCORPORATED
UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT 1956,
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE
TH
AT NO.46, 36 MAIN,
BTM DOLLAR SCHEME,
113
BENGALURU – 560 068
REPRESENED BY ITS DIRECTOR
SRI THOMAS J.OLLAPALLY
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI VIVEKANANDA T.P., ADVOCATE)
AND
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,
TH
4 FLOOR, VIKAS SOUDHA,
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU – 560 001.
2. THE BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE
N.R.SQUARE, BENGALURU – 560 002
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER.
3. THE JOINT DIRECTOR
TOWN PLANNING (SOUTH),
BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
N.R.SQUARE, BENGALURU – 560 002.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI R. SRINIVAS GOWDA, AGA FOR R1;
SRI SREENIDHI V. AND SMT.SINCHANA M.R.,
ADVOCATES FOR R2 AND R3 (PHYSICAL HEARING))
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH
THE DEMAND NOTICE DTD:20.2.2019 AT ANNEXURE-E
ISSUED BY THE R-3 ONLY INSOFAR AS THE DEMAND OF
RS.9,90,151/- TOWARDS GROUND RENT AND GST OF
RS.1,78,228/- INSOFAR AS BLOCK-2 IS CONCERNED AND
A SUM OF RS.53,88,550/- TOWARDS GROUND RENT AND
GST OF RS.9,69,939/- IN RESPECT OF BLOCK-1 IS
CONCERNED, DEMAND OF SUM OF RS.7,98,097/-
TOWARDS SECURITY DEPOSIT AND LICENSE FEE OF
RS.7,17,302/- AND ETC.
114
IN WRIT PETITION No.11386/2019
BETWEEN
M/S B & B INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.,
A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER
THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956,
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE
TH
AT NO.37, 4 CROSS,
AGA ABBAS ALI ROAD, ULSOOR,
BENGALURU – 560 042
REPRESENTED BY ITS
MANAGING DIRECTOR,
MR.S.K. BHASKAR RAJU.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI T.P.VIVEKANANDA, ADVOCATE (PHYSICAL
HEARING))
AND
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,
TH
4 FLOOR, VIKAS SOUDHA,
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU – 560 001.
2. THE BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE
N.R.SQUARE, BENGALURU – 560 002
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER.
3. THE JOINT DIRECTOR
TOWN PLANNING (SOUTH)
BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
N.R.SQUARE, BENGALURU – 560 002.
... RESPONDENTS
115
(BY SRI R.SRINIVAS GOWDA, AGA FOR R1;
SRI V.SRINIDHI A/W SMT.SINCHANA M.R., ADVOCATE
FOR R2 AND R3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH
THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 01.03.2019 AT
ANNEXURE - E ISSUED BY THE R-3 IN SO FAR AS HE
DEMAND OF RS. 5,29,078/- TOWARDS SCRUTINY FEE,
RS.28,83,094/- TOWARDS LICENSE FEE, RS. 27,00,036/-
TOWARDS GROUND RENT & GST AND ETC.,
IN WRIT PETITION No.13495/2019
BETWEEN
M/S SOBHA LIMITED
(FORMERLY SOBHA DEVELOPERS LIMITED)
A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER,
THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956
AND LHAVING ITS REGISTERED AND
CORPORATE OFFICE AT
‘SOBHA’, SARJAPUR-MARTHAHALLI
OUTER RING ROAD, (ORR)
DEVARABEESANAHALLI, BELLANDUR POST,
BENGALURU – 560 103.
REPRESDENTED BY ITS
AUTHORISED SIGNATORY
MR. RAGHAVENDRA N.R
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI K.G.RAGHAVAN, SENIOR COUNSEL A/W
SRI SANJAY NAIR, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
RELPRESENTED BY ITS ,
116
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,
TH
4 FLOOR, VIKAS SOUDHA,
AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU – 560 001.
2. BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER,
N.R. SQUARE,
BENGALURU – 560 002.
3. JOINT DIRECTOR
TOWN PLANNING (NORTH)
BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE
N.R. SQUARE,
BENGALURU - 560 002.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI R.SRINIVAS GOWDA, AGA FOR R1;
SRI SREENIDHI V., AND SMT.SINCHANA M.R.,
ADVOCATES FOR R2 AND R3 (PHYSICAL HEARING))
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
DECLARE THE BYELAWS NO.3.9 OF THE BANGALORE
MAHANAGARA PALIKE BUILDING BYE-LAWS 2003
(ANNEXURE-A) AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL, ILLEGAL AND
ULTRA VIRES AND ETC.,
IN WRIT PETITION No.14266/2019
BETWEEN
M/S RMZ AZURE PROJECTS PVT. LTD.,
A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF
THE COMPANIES ACT 1956
(FORMERLY KNOWN AS GMR HEBBAL TOWERS PRIVATE
LIMITED)
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT
117
“THE MILLENIA” TOWER-B, LEVEL 12-14
NO.1 & 2, MURPHY ROAD, ULSOOR
BENGALURU - 560 008
REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY
MR. JAYAKUMAR K
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. PRAKASH B.N., ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT,
TH
4 FLOOR, VIKASA SOUDHA
AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2 . BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE
N.R.SQUARE,
BENGALURU - 560 002
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER
3 . JOINT DIRECTOR
TOWN PLANNING (NORTH)
BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE
N.R.SQUARE
BENGALURU - 560 002
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI R SRINIVAS GOWDA, AGA FOR R-1,
SRI SREENIDHI V AND SMT.SINCHANA M.R.,
ADVOCATES FOR R2 AND R3 (PHYSICAL HEARING))
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 25.03.2019 ISSUED
BY THE R-3, BBMP AT ANNEXURE-A, SO FAR AS IT
118
RELATES TO CLAIM MADE FOR PAYMENT OF GROUND
RENT IS CONCERNED & ETC.,
IN WRIT PETITION No.18873/2019
BETWEEN
M/S. UKN ESPERANZA
A PARTNERSHIP FIRM,
NO.12, ST. PATRICK’S ARCADE,
RESIDENCY ROAD,
BENGALURU – 560 025
REPRESENTED BY ITS
AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY,
SUDHIR KUMAR MISHRA
WITH PLACE OF BUSINESS AT
TH
10 FLOOR, GAMMA BLOCK,
SIGMA SOFTTECH PARK,
NO.7, WHITEFIELD-VARTHUR MAIN ROAD,
BENGALURU – 560 066.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI IAN LEWIS & SMT.VEENA H.R., ADVOCATES)
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT,
TH
4 FLOOR, VIKASA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU – 560 001.
2. BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGAR PALIKE
N.R. SQUARE,
BENGALURU – 560 002,
REPRESENTED BY
ITS COMMISSIONER.
119
3. THE JOINT DIRECTOR
TOWN PLANNING,
BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGAR PALIKE
N.R. SQUARE,
BENGALURU – 560 002.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SRINIVAS GOWDA, AGA FOR R1;
SRI SREENIDHI V AND SMT.SINCHANA M.R.,
ADVOCATES FOR R2 & R3 (PHYSICAL HEARING))
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
ISSUE DIRECTION DECLARING BYE-LAW NO.3.9 OF THE
BANGALORE MAHANAGAR PALIKE BUILDING BYE-LAWS,
2003 (ANNEXURE-A) AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL, ILLEGAL
AND ULTRA VIRES AND ETC.,
IN WRIT PETITION No.19335/2019
BETWEEN
1. M/S SJR PRIME SPECTRUM PVT LTD
A REGISTERED COMPANY,
NO.1, SJR PRIMUS,
TH TH
7 BLOCK, 7 FLOOR,
KORAMANGALA INDUSTRIAL AREA,
BENGALURU - 560095
REP BY ITS BUSINESS
DEVELOPMENT OFFICER
2. SRI Y VENUGOPALA REDDY
AGED 72 YEARS,
S/O YELLAPPA REDDY,
R/AT ARAKERE VILLAGE,
BEGUR HOBLI,
120
BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK,
REP BY HIS GENERAL POWER OF
ATTORNEY HOLDER
M.S. SJR PRIME SPECTRUM PVT. LTD.
A REGISTERED COMPANY
NO.1, SJR PRIMUS,
TH TH
7 BLOCK, 7 FLOOR,
KORAMANGALA INDUSTRIAL AREA,
BENGALURU - 560095
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI VIVEKANANDA T.P., ADVOCATE)
AND
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP BY ITS SECRETARY,
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,
TH
4 FLOOR, VIKAS SOUDHA,
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BEANGALURU - 560 001
2. THE BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE
N.R.SQUARE, BENGALURU - 560 002,
REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER
3. THE JOINT DIRECTOR
TOWN PLANNING (SOUTH)
BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
N.R.SQUARE, BENGALURU - 560 002.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI R. SRINIVAS GOWDA, AGA FOR R1 (PHYSICAL
HEARING)
SRI SREENIDHI V. AND SMT. SINCHANA M.R.,
ADVOCATES FOR R2 AND R3(PHYSICAL HEARING))
121
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE DEMAND NOTICE DTD: 23.4.2019 AT
ANEXURE-F ISSUED BY THE R-3 ONLY IN SO FAR AS THE
DEMAND OF RS.60,21,900/- TOWARDS GROUND RENT,
GST, AT 18% ON THE GROUND RENT AT RS.10,83,942/-
LICENSE FEE OF RS.37,32,583/- IN RESPECT OF ISSUE
OF MODIFIED BUILDING PLAN AND FURTHER DEMAND
OF RS.4,81,67,130/- TOWARDS GROUND RENT AND GST
AT 18% ON THE GROUND RENT AT RS.86,70,083/- AND
SCRUTINY FEE OF RS.15,32,590/- IN RESPECT OF ISSUE
OF OCCUPANCY CERTIFICATE ETC.
IN WRIT PETITION No.19746/2019
BETWEEN
1. SRI. VENKATA KRISHNA REDDY
AGED 54 YEARS,
S/O V VENKATA RAMI REDDY
R/AT PENT HOUSE NO.1,
VARS FERNDALE APARTMENTS
ST
1 MAIN, KODIHALLI
ND
HAL 2 STAGE
BENGALURU - 560 008.
2. M/S SUBHODAYARAGA INFRA PVT LTD.,
A REGISTERED COMPANY
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.144,
TH RD
12 MAIN, 23 CROSS,
RD
3 BLOCK, JAYANAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 011.
3. DR. KRISHNA T V REDDY
AGED 66 YEARS,
S/O LATE T.V.CHALAMA REDDY
TH
R/AT NO.501, 6 FLOOR,
WINDSOR CASTLE
NO.50/1, PALACE ROAD,
122
NO.125, CUNNINGHAM ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 052.
REPRESENTED BY THEIR GPA HOLDER
M/S ANKURAA SAI NITYA VENTURES
A REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT
NO. NALLURAHALLI (V)
BENGALURU EAST - 560 066
BY ITS MANAGING PARTNERS
SRI P. BALASUBRAMANYAM AND
SRI G MADHUKAR
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI VIVEKANANDA T.P., ADVOCATE)
AND
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,
TH
4 FLOOR, VIKAS SOUDHA
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. THE BRUHAT BENGALURUR MAHANAGARA PALIKE
N.R.SQUARE, BENGALURU - 560 002
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER
3. THE JOINT DIRECTOR
TOWN PLANNING (NORTH)
BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE
N.R.SQUARE, BENGALURU - 560 002.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI R. SRINIVAS GOWDA, AGA FOR R1 (PHYSICAL
HEARING)
SRI SREENIDHI V. AND SMT. SINCHANA M.R.,
ADVOCATES FOR R2 AND R3 (PHYSICAL HEARING))
123
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH
THE DEMAND NOTICE DTD: 25.07.2018 AT ANNEXURE-D
ISSUED BY THE R-3 IN SO FAR AS THE DEMNAD OF
RS.10,85,994/- TOWARDS GROUND RENT, CGST AT
RS.97,740/-AND SGST AT RS.97,740/- ON GROUND RENT,
SECURITY DEPOSIT OF RS.24,13,321/- AND LICENSE FEE
OF RS.21,70,488/- ETC.
IN WRIT PETITION No.21988/2019
BETWEEN
1. SMT MALLIKA BEGUM
W/O LATE D. SYED ABBAS,
AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS
2. SRI D. SYED NOORUL HASSAN
S/O LATE D.SYED ABBAS,
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
BOTH PETITIONER NOs.1 & 2
RESIDING AT #168, ARMSTRONG ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560001.
BOTH PETITIONER NO. 1 & 2
REPRESENTED BY POWER OF
ATTORNEY HOLDER
M/S EMBASSY CLASSIC PVT. LTD.,
A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY HAVING
ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 101/102,
EMBASSY CHAMBERS,
5, VITTAL MALLYA ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560001
REPRESENTED BY ITS
MANAGING DIRECTOR,
SRI JAIKISHEN VIRWANI
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI SAMMITH S., ADVOCATE)
124
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS
ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY,
HOME DEPARTMENT,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU - 560001
2. THE COMMISSIONER,
BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
N.R. SQUARE, BENGALURU-560002
3. THE JOINT DIRECTOR,
TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (NORTH)
BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
N.R. SQUARE, BENGALURU - 560002
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI R. SRINIVAS GOWDA, AGA FOR R1 (PHYSICAL
HEARING)
SRI SREENIDHI V. AND SMT. SINCHANA M.R.,
ADVOCATES FOR R2 AND R3(PHYSICAL HEARING))
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE CIRCULAR ISSUED BY THE R-2
COMMISSIONER DATED 4.9.2015 LEVYING FEES FOR
ISSUE OF BUILDING LICENSE/SANCTION PLAN AS, AS
CONTAINED IN ANNX-E, AND THE DEMAND NOTICE
ISSUED BY THE R-3 ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR AND
DEMAND NOTICE DATED 01.02.2018, AS CONTAINED IN
ANNX-F ETC.
IN WRIT PETITION No.22316/2019
BETWEEN
M/S PARAG CONSTRUCTIONS AND DEVELOPERS
125
NO.3/1, J P TECHNO PARK
TH
4 FLOOR, MILLERS ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 042
REP. BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY
MR.U.VIVEKANANDA NAYAK
S/O UMANATH NAYAK U
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI CHANDAN K., ADVOCATE)
AND
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
TH
4 FLOOR, VIKAS SOUDHA,
AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU-560 001.
2. BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE
N.R.SQUARE, BENGALURU-560 002
REP. BY COMMISSIONER
3. JOINT DIRECTOR
TOWN PLANNING (NORTH)
BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE
N.R.SQUARE, BENGALURU-560 002.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI R. SRINIVAS GOWDA, AGA FOR R1 (PHYSICAL
HEARING)
SRI SREENIDHI V. AND SMT. SINCHANA M.R.,
ADVOCATES FOR R2 AND R3(PHYSICAL HEARING))
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
DIRECT DECLARING THE BYE-LAW NO.3.9 OF BBMP
BUILDING BYE-LAW 2003 AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL
ILLEGAL AND ULTRA VIRES ETC.
126
IN WRIT PETITION No.22389/2019
BETWEEN
1. SRI H R NARAYANASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO. 16,
ANNAPOORNESHWARI NILAYA,
ST
1 CROSS, NANJAPPA GARDEN,
BABUSABA PALYA, KALYAN NAGAR POST,
BENGALURU 560043,
2. SRI ATHIQUE AHMED
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.26/3,
ST
1 MAIN ROAD, GANGANAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560032
BOTH THE PETITIONERS
REPRESENTED BY ITS
POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER
M/S MEENAKSHI ESTATES,
A PARTNERSHIP FIRM
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE
AT NO.529, SMR VINAY HILANDS,
MADEENAGUDA, HYDERABAD – 500 049
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER
SRI K. YADAIAH.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI SAMMITH S., ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS ADDITIONAL
CHIEF SECRETARY,
HOME DEPARTMENT,
127
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BENGALURU-560001
2. THE COMMISSIONER
BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE
N.R. SQUARE,
BENGALURU-560002
3. THE JOINT DIRECTOR,
TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (NORTH)
BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
N.R. QUARE, BENGALURU - 560 002
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI R. SRINIVAS GOWDA, AGA FOR R1 (PHYSICAL
HEARING)
SRI SREENIDHI V. AND SMT. SINCHANA M.R.,
ADVOCATES FOR R2 AND R3(PHYSICAL HEARING))
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE CIRCULAR ISSUED BY THE R-2
COMMISSIONER DATED 04.09.2015 LEVYING FEES FOR
ISSUE OF BUILDING LICENSE/SANCTION PLAN AS, AS
CONTAINED IN ANNX-E AND THE DEMAND NOTICE
ISSUED BY THE R-3 ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR AND
DEMAND NOTICE DATED 23.04.2019, AS CONTAINED IN
ANNX-F ETC.
IN WRIT PETITION No.22621/2019
BETWEEN
1. M/S DSR INFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD
A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY HAVING ITS
REGISTERED OFFICE AT DSR TRANQUIL
PLOT NO.901, #101,
AYYAPPA SOCIETY MAIN ROAD
MADHAPUR, HYDERABAD-500 081
128
REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY
MR K S SATYANARAYANA REDDY
2. SRI K RAGHURAM REDDY
SON OF LATE P T KONDA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
3. SRI K JAYARAMA REDDY
SON OF LATE P T KONDA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
PETITIONER NOS.2 TO 3 ARE
RESIDING AT GUNJUR PALYA
GUNJUR POST, VARTHUR HOBLI
BENGALURU EAST TALUK
BENGALURU
REPRESENTED BY THEIR
POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER
PETITIONER NO.1
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI SAMMITH S., ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS
ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY
HOME DEPARTMENT
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BENGALURU-560 001
2. THE COMMISSIONER
BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE
N R SQUARE,
BENGALURU-560 002
129
3. THE JOINT DIRECTOR
TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (NORTH)
BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE
N R SQUARE, BENGALURU-560 002
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI R. SRINIVAS GOWDA, AGA FOR R1
(PHYSICAL HEARING)
SRI SREENIDHI V. AND SMT. SINCHANA M.R.,
ADVOCATES FOR R2 AND R3(PHYSICAL HEARING))
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE CIRCULAR ISSUED BY THE R-2
COMMISSIONER DATED 4.9.2015 LEVYING FEES FOR
ISSUE OF OCCUPANCY CERTIFICATE AS CONTAINED IN
ANNX-E, AND THE DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED BY THE R-3
JOINT DIRECTOR AND DEMAND NOTICE DATED
27.05.2019, AS CONTAINED IN ANNX-H.
IN WRIT PETITION No.23595/2019
BETWEEN
M/S SRINIDHI DESIGN BUILD PVT LTD
A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY HAVING ITS
OFFICE AT FLAT NO.401,
SRI EMERALK PARK,
NEXT TO VASVANI WHISPERING PALMS
MARATHAHALLI BENGALURU - 560037
REPRESENTED BY ITS
DIRECTOR MR B JAGADEESH
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI ZULFIKIR KUMAR SHAFI, ADVOCATE)
130
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
TH
4 FLOOR, VIKASA SOUDHA
BENGALURU - 560001
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
2. BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE
N R SQUARE, BENGALURU - 560002
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIOENR
3. THE JOINT DIRECTOR
TOWN PLANNING (NORTH)
BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE
BBMP ANNEX BUILDING
N R SQUARE, BENGALURU - 560002
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI R. SRINIVAS GOWDA, AGA FOR R1
(PHYSICAL HEARING)
SRI SREENIDHI V. AND SMT. SINCHANA M.R.,
ADVOCATES FOR R2 AND R3(PHYSICAL HEARING))
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
SET ASIDE THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 17.05.2019
ANNEXURE-A ISSUED BY R-3, CALLING UPON THE
PETITIONER TO PAY AN AMOUNT OF RS.10,08,876.64
(RUPEES TEN LAKHS EIGHT THOUSAND EIGHT HUNDRED
AND SEVENTY SIX AND PAISE SIXTY FOUR ONLY)
TOWARDS GROUND RENT AND PAYMENT OF A SUM OF
RS.18,99,956/- (RUPEES EIGHTEEN LAKHS NINETY NINE
THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED AND FIFTY SIX ONLY)
TOWARDS SECURITY DEPOSIT AND AN AMOUNT OF
RS.29,14,000/- TOWARDS LABOUR WORK WELFARE
FUND, FOR CONSTRUCTION OF RESIDENTIAL
APARTMENT IN PROPERTY BEARING SY.NO.135/1B (OLD
SY.NO.135/1) MEASURING AN EXTENT OF 2 ACRES OF
131
VIBHUTHIPURA VILLAGE, K.R.PURAM HOBLI, WARD
NO.081 ZONE, AS A PREREQUISITE CONDITION FOR
ISSUANCE OF PLAN AND LICENSE IN RESPECT OF THE
PROJECT OF THE PETITIONER ETC.
IN WRIT PETITION No.23888/2019
BETWEEN
SIPANI PROPERTIES PVT LTD
ST TH
NO.439, GROUND & 1 FLOOR, 18 MAIN,
TH
6 BLOCK, KORAMANGALA,
BENGALURU - 560095
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR,
MR DINESH SIPANI.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI PRASHANTH KUMAR D., ADVOCATE)
AND
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,
TH
4 FLOOR, VIKAS SOUDHA,
AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU - 560001
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
2. BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE
N R SQUARE, BENGALURU - 560002
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER
3. JOINT DIRECTOR
TOWN PLANNING (NORTH)
BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
N R SQUARE, BENGALURU - 560002
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI R. SRINIVAS GOWDA, AGA FOR R1
(PHYSICAL HEARING)
132
SRI SREENIDHI V. AND SMT. SINCHANA M.R.,
ADVOCATES FOR R2 AND R3(PHYSICAL HEARING))
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
DECLARE THE BYE-LAW 3.9 OF THE BANGALORE
MAHANAGARA PALIKE BUILDING BYE-LAWS, 2003 AS
UNCONSTITUTIONAL, ILLEGAL AND ULTRA-VIRES (ANNX-
B) ETC.
IN WRIT PETITION No.24906/2019
BETWEEN
M/S FOUNTAIN REAL ESTATES AND DEVELOPERS
(PRESENTLY M/S BAGAMANE VENTURES
PRIVATE LIMITED)
REPRESENTED BY ITS
GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER
M/S PRESTIGE ESTATES PROJECTS LIMITED
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT
THE FALCON HOUSE, NO 1,
MAIN GUARD CROSS ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560001
ACTING THROUGH ITS
AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY
MR T ARVIND PAI
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI NANDAKUMAR C.K, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS
ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BENGALURU – 560 001
133
2. THE COMMISSIONER
BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE
N.R.SQUARE,
BENGALURU – 560 002.
3. THE JOINT DIRECTOR
TOWN AND COUNTY PLANNING SOUTH
BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE
N R SQUARE
BENGALURU – 560 002.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI R. SRINIVAS GOWDA, AGA FOR R1,
SRI SREENIDHI V., AND SMT.SINCHANA M.R.,
ADVOCATES FOR R2 AND R3 (PHYSICAL HEARING))
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED BY THE R-3 THE
JOINT DIRECTOR PLANNING DTD:06.06.2019 [ANNEXURE-
A] IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO THE DEMAND OF THE
GROUND RENT AND THE GST THEREON TOTALLY
AMOUNTING TO RS.98,18,112/- [RUPEES NINETY EIGHT
LAKHS EIGHTEEN THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED TWELVE
ONLY] AND ETC.,
IN WRIT PETITION No.25145/2019
BETWEEN
M/S SHOBHA LIMITED
(FORMERLY SOBHA DEVELOPERS LIMITED)
A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER,
THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956
AND HAVING ITS REGISTERED AND
CORPORATE OFFICE AT,
‘SOBHA’, SARJAPUR-MARTHAHALLI
OUTER RING ROAD (ORR)
DEVARABEESANAHALLI, BELLANDUR POST,
134
BENGALURU – 560 103,
REP. BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY,
MR. RAGHAVENDRA N.R.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI MADHUKAR DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,
TH
4 FLOOR, VIKAS SOUDHA,
AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU – 560 001.
2. BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER,
N.R.SQUARE, BENGALURU – 560 002.
3. JOINT DIRECTOR
TOWN PLANNING (NORTH)
BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE
N.R.SQUARE, BENGALURU – 560 002.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI R.SRINIVAS GOWDA, AGA FOR R1
(PHYSICAL HEARING);
SRI SREENIDHI V & SMT.SINCHANA M.R., ADVOCATES
FOR R2 AND R3 (PHYSICAL HEARING))
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
DECLARE THE BYELAWS NO.3.9 OF THE BANGALORE
MAHANAGARA PALIKE BUILDING BYE-LAWS 2003
[ANNEXURE-A] AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL, ILLEGAL AND
ULTRA VIRES; QUASH THE DEMAND NOTICE DTD:
06.06.2019 [ANNEXURE-B] ISSUED BY R-3 TO THE
135
EXTENT OF CLAIM MADE FOR PAYMENT OF
RS.1,07,76,702/- [RUPEES ONE CRORE SEVEN LAKHS
SEVENTY SIX THOUSAND AND SEVEN HUNDRED TWO
ONLY] TOWARDS GROUND RENT AND RS.19,39,806/-
[RUPEES NINETEEN LAKHS THIRTY NINE THOUSAND AND
EIGHT HUNDRED SIX ONLY] TOWARDS GST ON THE SAID
GROUND RENT AND ETC.
IN WRIT PETITION No.25167/2019
BETWEEN
1. M/S. ARATTUKULAM DEVELOPERS
A REGISTERD PARTNERSHIP FIRM
NO.739, ADJACENT TO CHEVROLET SHOWROOM,
HOSUR MAIN ROAD, SINGASANDRA,
BENGALURU - 560 068
REPRESENTED BY ITS
MANAGING PARTNER
SRI. TONY VINCENT
2. SMT. M.R. JAMMUNARANI
AGED 55 YEARS
W/O SRI. K.A. SRINIVASMURTHY
ST
R/AT NO.57/1, 1 MAIN ROAD,
LAKSHMIPURA, HALASUR,
BENGALURU 560 008
REPRESENTED BY HER
GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER
M/S ARATTUKULAM DEVELOPERS
A REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM,
NO.739, ADJACENT TO CHEVOROLET SHOWROOM
HOSUR MAIN ROAD,
SINGASANDRA, BENGALURU - 560 068
REPRESENTED BY ITS
MANAGING PARTNER
SRI. TONY VINCENT
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI VIVEKANANDA T.P., ADVOCATE)
136
AND
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
URBAN DEVELOPMETN DEPARTMENT,
TH
4 FLOOR, VIKAS SOUDHA,
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. THE BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANGARA PALIKE
N.R. SQUARE, BENGALURU - 560 002.
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER.
3. THE JOINT DIRECTOR
TOWN PLANNING (SOUTH),
BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANGARA PALIKE
N.R. SQUARE, BENGALURU 560 002.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI R. SRINIVAS GOWDA, AGA FOR R1
(PHYSICAL HEARING)
SRI SREENIDHI V. AND SMT. SINCHANA M.R.,
ADVOCATES FOR R2 AND R3(PHYSICAL HEARING))
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH
THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 06.06.2019 AT ANNX-E
ISSUED BY THE R-3 ONLY IN SO FAR AS THE DEMAND OF
RS.38,85,345/- AND FURTHER DEMANDING RS.6,99,362/-
TOWARDS GST AT 18% AND SCRUTINY FEE OF
RS.2,59,023/- IN RESPECT OF ISSUE OF OCCUPANCY
CERTIFICATE ETC.
IN WRIT PETITION No.25459/2019
BETWEEN
1. M/S SOBHA LIMITED
(FORMERLY SOBHA DEVELOPERS LIMITED)
137
A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE
COMPANIES ACT, 1956
REGISTERED AND CORPORATE OFFICE AT
‘SOBHA’, SARJAPUR - MARATHAHALLI OUTER
RING ROAD(ORR)
DEVARABEESANAHALLI, BELLANDUR POST
BENGALURU - 560103
REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY
MR RAGHAVENDRA N R
2. SMT GOWRAMMA
W/O SRI KEMPEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS
R/A DODDAHALLAHALLI VILLAGE
KANAKAPURA TALUK
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562117
REPRESENTED BY HER POWER
OF ATTORNEY HOLDER
M/S. SOBHA DEVELOPERS LTD.,
AND ITS REPRESENTED BY
AUTHORISED SIGNATORY,
MR. RAGHAVENDRA N.R.
3. SRI D K SURESH
S/O SRI KEMPEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
R/A DODDAHALLAHALLI VILLAGE
KANAKAPURA TALUK
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562117
REPRESENTED BY HIS
POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER
M/S. SOBHA DEVELOPERS LTD.,
AND ITS REPRESENTED BY
AUTHORISED SIGNATORY,
MR. RAGHAVENDRA N.R.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI MADHUKAR DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE)
138
AND
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
URBAN DEVELOPMETN DEPARTMENT,
TH
4 FLOOR, VIKAS SOUDHA,
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. THE BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANGARA PALIKE
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER.
N.R. SQUARE, BENGALURU - 560 002.
3. THE JOINT DIRECTOR TOWN PLANNING (SOUTH),
BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANGARA PALIKE
N.R. SQUARE, BENGALURU - 560 002.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI R. SRINIVAS GOWDA, AGA FOR R1
(PHYSICAL HEARING)
SRI SREENIDHI V. AND SMT. SINCHANA M.R.,
ADVOCATES FOR R2 AND R3(PHYSICAL HEARING))
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
DECLARE THE BYELAWS NO.3.9 OF THE BANGALORE
MAHANAGARA PALIKE BUILDING BYE-LAWS 2003
(ANNEXURE-A) AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL, ILLEGAL AND
ULTRA VIRES ETC.
IN WRIT PETITION No.25462/2019
BETWEEN
1. M/S SOBHA LIMITED
(FORMERLY SOBHA DEVELOPERS LIMITED)
A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE
139
COMPANIES ACT, 1956
REGISTERED AND CORPORATE OFFICE AT
‘SOBHA’, SARJAPUR - MARTHAHALLI OUTER
RING ROAD(ORR)
DEVARABEESANAHALLI, BELLANDUR POST
BENGALURU - 560103
REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY
MR RAGHAVENDRA N R
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI MADHUKAR DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
TH
4 FLOOR, VIKAS SOUDHA
AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU-560001
2. BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIOENR
N R SQUARE, BENGALURU - 560002
3. JOINT DIRECTOR TOWN PLANNING(SOUTH)
BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE
N R SQUARE, BENGALURU - 560002
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI R. SRINIVAS GOWDA, AGA FOR R1
(PHYSICAL HEARING)
SRI SREENIDHI V. AND SMT. SINCHANA M.R.,
ADVOCATES FOR R2 AND R3(PHYSICAL HEARING))
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
DECLARE THE BYELAWS NO.3.9 OF THE BANGALORE
MAHANAGARA PALIKE BUILDING BYE-LAWS 2003
140
(ANNEXURE-A) AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL, ILLEGAL AND
ULTRA VIRES ETC.
IN WRIT PETITION No.25496/2019
BETWEEN
1. SRI. SRINIVASAMURTHY Y.M.
AGED 69 YEARS,
S/O LATE M V MUNIYAPPA,
TH
R/AT NO.354, 13 ‘A’ MAIN,
A SECTOR, YELAHANKA,
BENGALURU - 560064
2. SMT HEMALATHA
AGED 58 YEARS,
W/O LATE SRI CHIDANANDA Y C,
3. SRI Y C SUHAS
AGED 38 YEARS,
S/O LATE SRI CHIDANANDA Y C,
PETITIONERS NO.2 AND 3 ARE
R/AT NO.777, BASAVESHWARA NILAYA,
RAILWAY STATION ROAD, YELAHANKA OLD TOWN,
BENGALURU-560064
REPRESENTED BY THEIR GPA HOLDER,
M/S JKC VARMA AND ORS,
A REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT
ST
NO.11, 1 ‘A’ MAIN, SECTOR-A,
YELAHANKA NEW TOWN, BENGALURU,
BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER
SRI JKC VARMA
(J. KRISHNA CHAITANYA VARMA)
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI VIVEKANANDA T.P., ADVOCATE)
141
AND
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,
TH
4 FLOOR, VIKAS SOUDHA,
DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU - 560001
2. THE BRUHAT BANGALORE
MAHANAGARA PALIKE
N R SQUARE, BENGALURU - 560002
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER,
3. THE JOINT DIRECTOR
TOWN PLANNING (NORTH0
BRUHAT BANGALORE
MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
N R SQUARE,
BENGALURU – 560002
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI R. SRINIVAS GOWDA, AGA FOR R1
(PHYSICAL HEARING)
SRI SREENIDHI V. AND SMT. SINCHANA M.R.,
ADVOCATES FOR R2 AND R3 (PHYSICAL HEARING))
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH
THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 04.06.2019 AT ANNX-D
ISSUED BY THE R-3 IN SO FAR AS THE DEMAND OF
RS.3,06,810/- TOWARDS SCRUTINY FEE, RS.61,36,206/-
TOWARDS LICENSE FEE, RS.32,61,164/- TOWARDS
SECURITY DEPOSIT AND RS.56,89,140/- TOWARDS
GROUND RENT AND CGST AND GST ON GROUND RENT
ETC.,
142
IN WRIT PETITION No.27756/2019
BETWEEN
1. SMT. VIMALAMMA
W/O SRI M.GOVARDHAN,
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
2. SRI M.GOVARDHAN
S/O LATE SRI R.MUNISWAMY REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS.
3. SRI G.GIRISH
S/O SRI M.GOVARDHAN
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
4. SMT. SUMA NEELISH
W/O SRI NEELISH REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
TH
RESIDING AT NO.3349, 5 CROSS,
TH ND
12 MAIN, HAL 2 STAGE,
INDIRANAGAR,
BENGALURU – 560 008.
PETITIONER NOS.1 TO 4 REPRESENTED BY ITS
POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER M/S BRR
HALLMARK DEVELOPERS LLP
A PARTNERSHIP FIRM HAVING
ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.9,
ST
SECOND FLOOR, 1 MAIN, H.I.G.H. LAYOUT,
GANGANAGAR,
BENGALURU – 560 032 REPRESENTED BY ITS
DESIGNATED PARTNER
SRI B.RAMESH REDDY.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI SAMMITH S., ADVOCATE)
143
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
LABOUR DEPARTMENT,
VIKASA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU – 560 001.
2. THE UNDERSECRETARY
MINISTRY OF LABOUR,
VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU – 560 001.
3. THE COMMISSIONER
BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
N.R.SQUARE,
BENGALURU – 560 002.
4. THE JOINT DIRECTOR
TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (NORTH)
BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
N.R.SQUARE,
BENGALURU-560 002
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI R.SRINIVAS GOWDA, AGA FOR R1 AND R2
(PHYSICAL HEARING)
SRI SREENIDHI V. AND SMT. SINCHANA M.R.,
ADVOCATES FOR R3 AND R4 (PHYSICAL HEARING))
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE GOVRNMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE R-2
DTD18.1.2007 AND THE CORRIGENDUM THEREIN
DTD28.2.2007 MANDATING UPFRONT COLLECTION OF
LABOUR WELFARE CESS, AS CONTAINED IN ANNEXURE-C
AND THE DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED BY THE R-4 ON
DTD24.6.2019 AS CONTAINED IN ANNEXURE-D INSO FAR
AS THE LABOUR WELFARE CESS ETC.
144
IN WRIT PETITION No.28990/2019
BETWEEN
M/S SOBHA HIGHRISE VENTURES PRIVATE LIMITED
A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER
THE COMPANIES ACT 1956
REGISTERED AND CORPORATE OFFICE AT
SOBHA SARJAPUR MARTHAHALLI
OUTER RING ROAD (ORR)
DEVAREBEESANAHALLI BELLANDUR POST
BENGALURU - 560103
REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY
MR RAGHAVENDRA N R
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI MADHUKAR DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,
TH
4 FLOOR, VIKAS SOUDHA
AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU - 560001
2. BRUHATH BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER
N R SQUARE, BENGALURU - 560002
3. JOINT DIRECTOR
TOWN PLANNING (NORTH)
BRUHATH BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE
N R SQUARE, BENGALURU - 560002
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI R.SRINIVAS GOWDA, AGA FOR R1 (PHYSICAL
HEARING);
SRI SREENIDHI V., AND SMT. SINCHANA M.R.,
ADVOCATES FOR R2 AND R3(PHYSICAL HEARING))
145
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
DECLARE THE BYELAWS NO.3.9 OF THE BANGALORE
MAHANAGARA PALIKE BUILDING BYE-LAWS 2003
(ANNEXURE-A) AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL, ILLEGAL AND
ULTRA VIRES ETC.
IN WRIT PETITION No.28992/2019
BETWEEN
1. M/S SOBHA LIMITED
(FORMERLY SOBHA DEVELOPERS LIMITED)
A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE
COMPANIES ACT 1956
REGISTERED AND CORPROATE OFFICE AT
SOBHA SARJAPUR MARTHAHALLI
OUTER RING ROAD (ORR)
DEVARABEESANAHALLI BELLANDUR POST
BENGALURU - 560103
REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY
MR RAGHAVENDRA N R
2. M/S RAO BAHADUR B P ANNASWAMY
CIE PUBLIC TRUST AT NO.59
MOORE ROAD, FRAZER TOWN,
BENGALURU-560005
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING
TRUSTEE-CUM-SECERTARY
SRI V P MANOHAR
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI MADHUKAR DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
4TH FLOOR, VIKASA SOUDHA
146
AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU - 560001
2. BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIOENR
N R SQUARE, BENGALURU - 560002
3. JOINT DIRECTOR
TOWN PLANNING (NORTH)
BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE
N R SQUARE, BENGALURU - 560002
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI R.SRINIVAS GOWDA, AGA FOR R1 (PHYSICAL
HEARING);
SRI SREENIDHI V., AND SMT. SINCHANA M.R.,
ADVOCATES FOR R2 AND R3(PHYSICAL HEARING))
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
DECLARE THE BYELAWS NO.3.9 OF THE BANGALORE
MAHANAGARA PALIKE BUILDING BYE-LAWS 2003
(ANNEXURE-A) AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL, ILLEGAL AND
ULTRA VIRES ETC.
IN WRIT PETITION No.29271/2019
BETWEEN
M/S SHUBHACHANDI GRIHA NIRMAN PVT. LTD.,
A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY HAVING ITS
CORPORATE OFFICE AT NO.3,
SALARPURIA WINDSOR
4TH FLOOR, ULSOOR ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 042
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR
SRI B.M.JAYESHANKAR
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI SAMMITH S., ADVOCATE)
147
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS
ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY
HOME DEPARTMENT
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. THE UNDERSECRETARY
MINISTRY OF LABOUR
VIKASA SOUDHA
BENGALURU - 560 001.
3. THE COMMISSIONER
BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIE
N.R.SQUARE, BENGALURU - 560 002.
4. THE JOINT DIRECTOR
TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (NORTH)
BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE
N.R.SQUARE, BENGALURU - 560 002.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI R.SRINIVAS GOWDA, AGA FOR R1 AND R2
(PHYSICAL HEARING);
SRI SREENIDHI V., AND SMT. SINCHANA M.R.,
ADVOCATES FOR R3 AND R4 (PHYSICAL HEARING))
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE GOVERNMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE R-2
DTD:18.1.2007 AND THE CORRIGENDUM THEREIN DTD:
28.2.2007 MANDATING UPFRONT COLLECTION OF
LABOUR WELFARE CESS, AS CONTAINED IN ANNEXURE-C
CIRCULAR ISSIED BY THE R-2 COMMISSIONER
DTD4.9.2015 LEVYING FEES FOR ISSUE OF BUILDING
LICENSE/SANCTION PLAN AS CONTAINED IN ANNEXURE-
D, AND THE DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED BY THE R-3
148
ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR DTD: 24.6.2019 AS CONTAINED IN
ANNEXURE-E ETC.
IN WRIT PETITION No.29296/2019
BETWEEN
BODHI NIKETAN TRUST
A REGISTERED TRUST HAVING
ITS OFFICE AT NO.68,
CMI ASHRAM,
K. NARAYANAPURA VILLAGE,
KOTHANUR WARD NO.25,
BENGALURU – 560 077
REPRESENTED BY ITS
AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY
FR. LIJO P. THOMAS
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI SAMMITH S., ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
LABOUR DEPARTMENT,
VIKASA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU – 560 001.
2. THE UNDERSECRETARY
MINISTRY OF LABOUR,
VIKASA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU – 560 001.
3. THE COMMISSIONER
BRUHAT BENGALURU
MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
N.R.SQUARE,
BENGALURU – 560 002.
149
4. THE JOINT DIRECTOR
TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (NORTH)
BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
N.R. SQUARE,
BENGALURU-560002
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI R.SRINIVAS GOWDA, AGA FOR R1 & R2
(PHYSICAL HEARING);
SRI SREENIDHI V & SMT.SINCHANA M.R., ADVOCATES
FOR R3 & R4 (PHYSICAL HEARING))
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE GOVERNMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE R-2
DATED 18.1.2007 AND THE CORRIGENDUM THEREIN
DATED 28.02.2007 MANDATING UPFRONT COLLECTION
OF LABOUR WELFARE CESS, AS CONTAINED IN ANNX-A
AND THE DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED BY THE R-4 ON
18.03.2019, AS CONTAINED IN ANNX-B INSOFAR AS THE
LABOUR WELFARE CESS AND ETC.
IN WRIT PETITION No.29578/2019
BETWEEN
1. M/S FERNS BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS
A PARTNERSHIP FIRM HAVING ITS REGISTERED
OFFICE AT NO.95, AMARJYOTHI LAYOUT
INNER RING ROAD, DOMLUR
BENGALURU - 560 071
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER
SRI AUSTIN ROACH
2. SRI AUSTIN ROACH
SON OF LATE P A ROACH
AGEDA BOUT 64 YEARS
ST
RESIDING AT NO.5, 1 MAIN ROAD
150
DEFENCE COLONY, INDIRANAGAR
BENGALURU - 560 038
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI SAMMITH S., ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRSENTED BY ITS ADDITIONAL CHEIF
SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT
VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001
2. THE COMMISSIONER
BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE
N R SQUARE, BENGALURU-560 002
3. THE JOINT DIRECTOR
TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (NORTH)
BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE
N R SQUARE, BENGALURU-560 002.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI R.SRINIVAS GOWDA, AGA FOR R1 (PHYSICAL
HEARING);
SRI SREENIDHI V., AND SMT. SINCHANA M.R.,
ADVOCATES FOR R2 AND R3(PHYSICAL HEARING))
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE CIRCULAR ISSUED BY THE R-2
COMMISSIONER DATED 4.9.2015 LEVYING FEES FOR
ISSUE OF OCCUPANCY CERTIFICATE, AS CONTAINED IN
ANNX-E, AND THE DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED BY THE R-3 -
JOINT DIRECTOR DATED 04.07.2019, AS CONTAINED IN
ANNX-F ETC.,
151
IN WRIT PETITION No.30168/2019
BETWEEN
1. SRI M MUNISWAMY
SON OF LATE T R MUNISWAMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS,
2. SRI M ANJINAPPA
SON OF LATE T R MUNISWAMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
3. SRI M CHINNATHAYAPPA
SON OF LATE T R MUNISWAMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
4. SMT SHARADAMMA
WIFE OF LATE M JAYARAMAKRISHNA
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
5. SMT NEELAMMA
WIFE OF LATE M RAMACHANDRA
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
6. SMT M NEELAMMA
WIFE OF SRI CHINNAMARI
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
7. SMT M JAYAMMA
WIFE OF MUNIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
8. SMT M AKKAYAMMA
WIFE OF SRI C RAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS,
9. SMT M PADMAMMA
WIFE OF SRI MUNIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
152
10. SMT M PARVATHAMMA
WIFE OF LATE KRISHNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
PETITIONER NOS.1 TO 10 ARE
RESIDING AT RAMAGONDANAHALLI VILAGE
VARTHUR HOBLI BANGALORE
REPRESENTED BY THEIR
POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER
M/S VERACIOUS BUILDERS AND
DEVELOPERS PVT LTD
A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY HAVING
ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.302
OXFORD CHAMBERS,
RUSTUMBAGH AIRPORT ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 017
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
SRI K SREENIVASULU REDDY
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI SAMMITH S., ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS
ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY
HOME DEPARTMENT
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BENGALURU-560 001
2. THE COMMISSIONER
BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE
N R SQUARE,
BENGALURU-560 002
153
3. THE JOINT DIRECTOR
TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (NORTH)
BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE
N R SQUARE, BENGALURU-560 002
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI R.SRINIVAS GOWDA, AGA FOR R1 (PHYSICAL
HEARING);
SRI SREENIDHI V., AND SMT. SINCHANA M.R.,
ADVOCATES FOR R2 AND R3(PHYSICAL HEARING))
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE CIRCULAR ISSUED BY THE R-2
COMMISSIONER DATED 4.9.2015 LEVYING FEES FOR
ISSUE OF OCCUPANCY CERTIFICATE, AS CONTAINED IN
ANNX-E, AND THE DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED BY THE R-3 -
JOINT DIRECTOR DATED 08.07.2019, AS CONTAINED IN
ANNX-F ETC.
IN WRIT PETITION No.38063/2019
BETWEEN
1. SRI M DAMODAR REDDY
S/O M.VENKU REDDY
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
2. SRI.M.SUREKHA
W/O M.DAMODAR REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
PETITIONERS NO.1 AND 2 ARE
R/AT NO.12B, ANANTHAPURA VILLAGE,
ATTUR POST, YELAHANKA,
154
BENGALURU-560 064
3. SRI.M.SRIHARI REDDY
S/O M.RAJARAMI REDDY
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
R/AT ANANTHAPURA VILLAGE,
ATTUR POST, YELAHANKA,
BENGALURU-560 064.
PETITIONERS NO.1 TO 3 ARE
REP. BY THEIR POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER
M/S DSR INFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD
A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY HAVING ITS
REGISTERED OFFICE AT DSR TRANQUIL,
PLOT NO.901 # 101,
AYYAPPA SOCIETY MAIN ROAD, MADHAPUR,
HYDERABAD-500 081
REP. BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY
MR. K.S. SATYANARAYANA REDDY
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI SAMMITH S., ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP BY ITS ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY
HOME DEPARTMENT
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BENGALURU-560 001.
2. THE COMMISSIONER
BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE
N.R.SQUARE, BENGALURU-560 002.
3. THE JOINT DIRECTOR
TOWN AND COUNTER PLANNING (NORTH)
BBMP, N.R.SQUARE, BENGALURU-560 002.
... RESPONDENTS
155
(BY SRI R.SRINIVAS GOWDA, AGA FOR R1;
SRI SREENIDHI V. AND SMT.SINCHANA M.R.,
ADVOCATES FOR R2 AND R3 (PHYSICAL HEARING))
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE CIRCULAR ISSUED BY THE R-2
COMMISSIONER DTD4.9.2015 LEVYING FEES FOR ISSUE
OF OCCUPANCY CERTIFICATE, AS CONTAINED IN
ANNEXURE-D AND THE DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED BY THE
R-3 JOINT DIRECTOR DTD:03.08.2019 AS CONTAINED IN
ANNEXURE-H AND ETC.,
IN WRIT PETITION No.38832/2019
BETWEEN
KOLTE PATIL DEVELOPERS LIMITED
BEING A COMPANY INCORPORATED
UNDER THE COMPANEIS ACT, 1956
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT:
ND
NO.17, CITY POINT, 2 FLOOR,
DHOLE PATIL ROAD, PUNE – 411 001.
BRANCH OFFICE AT:
THE ESTATE NO.121
TH
10 FLOOR, DICKENSON ROAD
BENGALURU – 560 042.
REPRESENTED BY ITS
ATTORNEY HOLDER
MR.B.C.JAGDEESHA
... PETITIONER
(BY MS.NAYANTARA, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI G.L.VISHWANATH, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
156
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
TH
4 FLOOR, VIKAS SOUDHA,
AMBEDKAR VEEDI,
BENGALURU – 560 001.
2. BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER
N.R.SQUARE,
BENGALURU – 560 002.
3. JOINT DIRECTOR (TOWN PLANNING - NORTH)
BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE
N R SQUARE,
BENGALURU – 560 002.
4. ASSISTANT ENGINEER (TOWN PLANNING - NORTH)
BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE
N R SQUARE,
BENGALURU – 560 002.
5. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR (TOWN PLANNING NORTH)
BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE
N R SQUARE, BENGALURU – 560 002
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI R.SRINIVAS GOWDA, AGA FOR R1;
SRI SREENIDHI V., AND SMT.SINCHANA M.R.,
ADVOCATES FOR R2 TO R5 (PHYSICAL HEARING))
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH
THE DEMAND DTD:5.8.2019 ISSUED BY THE R-3 AT
ANNEXURE-R TO THE EXTENT OF RS.1,30,10,146 BEING
THE GROUND RENT, GST, AND SCRUTINY FEE
DEMANDED THEREIN AND ETC.,
157
IN WRIT PETITION No.39208/2019
BETWEEN
1. SMT. SNEHALATHA KHOLAY
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS
(SENIOR CITIZEN BENEFIT NOT CLAIMED)
W/O. SRI. H.C. KHOLAY, RESIDING AT NO.53,
27TH MAIN ROAD, 1ST CROSS,
BTM 1ST STAGE, BENGALURU - 560068.
REPRESENTED BY HER POWER OF ATTORNEY
HOLDER M/S. DSR INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.
2. M/S. DSR INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT
DSR TRANQUIL, PLOT NO.901, #101,
AYYAPPA SOCIETY MAIN ROAD, MADHAPUR,
HYDERABAD-500081.
REPRESENTED BY ITS CEO AND AUTHORIZED
SIGNATORY MR. K.S. SATYANARAYANA REDDY
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI SAMMITH S., ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS
ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY
HOME DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA
BENGALURU-560001.
2. THE COMMISSIONER
BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE
N.R. SQUARE, BENGALURU-560002.
3. THE JOINT DIRECTOR
TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (NORTH)
BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE
158
N.R. SQUARE
BENGALURU-560002.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI R.SRINIVAS GOWDA, AGA FOR R1;
SRI SREENIDHI V. AND SMT.SINCHANA M.R.,
ADVOCATES FOR R2 AND R3 (PHYSICAL HEARING))
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE CIRCULAR ISSUED BY THE R-2
COMMISSIONER DATED 4.9.2015 LEVYING FEES FOR
ISSUE OF OCCUPANCY CERTIFICATE, AS CONTAINED IN
ANNEXURE-E AND THE DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED BY THE
R-3 JOINT DIRECTOR DTD: 16.8.2019 AS CONTAINED IN
ANEXURE-H AND ETC.,
IN WRIT PETITION No.41698/2019
BETWEEN
M/S. SHYAMARAJU & COMPANY (INDIA) PVT. LTD.
A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY HAVING ITS REGISTERED
OFFICE AT DIVYASREE CHAMBERS, A-WING NO.11,
O’SHAUGNESSY ROAD, BENGALURU - 560025.
REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY,
SRI RAGHAVENDRA SAANU.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI SAMMITH S., ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS ADDITIONAL CHIEF
SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU-560001.
159
2. THE UNDER SECRETARY
MINISTRY OF LABOUR,
VIKASA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU-560001.
3. THE COMMISSIONER
BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
N.R. SQUARE, BENGALURU-560002.
4. THE JOINT DIRECTOR
TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (NORTH)
BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
N.R. SQUARE, BENGALURU-560002.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI R.SRINIVAS GOWDA, AGA FOR R1 AND R2;
SRI SREENIDHI V. AND SMT.SINCHANA M.R.,
ADVOCATES FOR R3 AND R4 (PHYSICAL HEARING))
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE GOVERNMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE R-2
DATED 18.01.2007 AND THE CORRIGENDUM THEREIN
DATED 28.02.2007 MANDATING UPFRONT COLLECTION
OF LABOUR WELFARE CESS, AS CONTAINED IN ANNX-C,
CIRCULAR ISSUED BY THE R-2 COMMISSIONER DATED
4.9.2015 LEVYING FEES FOR ISSUE OF BUILDING
LICENSE/SANCTION PLAN AS, AS CONTAINED IN ANNX-D,
AND THE DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED BY THE R-3 - ADDL.
DIRECTOR DATED 18.07.2019, AS CONTAINED IN ANNX-E
ETC.
IN WRIT PETITION No.42396/2019
BETWEEN
M/S SOBHA LIMITED
(FORMERLY SOBHA DEVELOPERS LIMITED)
A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER
160
THE COMPANIES ACT 1956
REGISTERED AND CORPORATE OFFICE AT
’SOBHA’, SARJAPUR - MARTHAHALLI
OUTER RING ROAD, (ORR)
DEVARABEESANAHALLI, BELLANDUR POST
BENGALURU - 560 103
REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY
MR RAGHAVENDRA N R
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI MADHUKAR DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
TH
4 FLOOR, VIKAS SOUDHA
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU - 560 001
2. BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER
N R SQUARE, BENGALURU - 560 002
3. JOINT DIRECTOR
TOWN PLANNING (SOUTH)
BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE
N R SQUARE, BENGALURU - 560 002
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI R.SRINIVAS GOWDA, AGA FOR R1;
SRI SREENIDHI V. AND SMT.SINCHANA M.R.,
ADVOCATES FOR R2 AND R3 (PHYSICAL HEARING))
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
DECLARE THE BYELAWS NO.3.9 OF THE BANGALORE
MAHANAGARA PALIKE BUILDING BYE-LAWS 2003
161
(ANNEXURE-A) AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL, ILLEGAL AND
ULTRA VIRES ETC.
IN WRIT PETITION No.44811/2019
BETWEEN
1. SRI C. JAGANNATH NAIDU
AGED 75 YEARS,
S/O LATE CHINNAPPA NAIDU,
2. SMT VASANTHA J
AGED 67 YEARS,
W/O SRI C JAGANNATH NAIDU,
3. SRI J CHANDRASHEKAR
AGED 47 YEARS,
S/O C JAGANNATH NAIDU,
4. SRI J SHARAVANA
AGED 45 YEARS,
S/O SRI JAGANNATH NAIDU,
PETITIONERS NO.1 TO 4 ARE
R/AT NO.34, ITI LAYOUT,
B.NARAYANAPURA VILLAGE,
DOORVANI NAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560016
REPRESENTED BY THEIR GPA HOLDER
FOR PETITIONER NOS.1 TO 6
M/S SJR PRIME CORPORATION PVT LTD.,
A REGISTERED COMPANY,
NO.1, SJR PRIMUS, 7TH BLOCK,
7TH FLOOR, KORAMANGALA INDUSTRIAL AREA,
BENGALURU – 560 095
REPRESENTED BY ITS
ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR
SRI TEJUS REDDY
162
5. SRI N VENUGOPALA REDDY
AGED 64 YEARS,
S/O SRI NAGAPPA,
R/O SONNENAHALLI VILLAGE,
MAHADEVAPURA POST,
K R PURAM HOBLI,
BENGALURU EAST TALUK
6. SRI MADHUSUDHAN REDDY
AGED 36 YEARS,
S/O SRI VENUGOPAL REDDY,
R/OF SONNENAHALLI VILLAGE,
MAHADEVAPURA POST,
K R PURAM HOBLI,
BENGALURU EAST TALUK.
7. M/S SJR PRIME CORPORATION PVT LTD
A REGISTERED COMPANY,
NO.1, SJR PRIMUS,
7TH BLOCK, 7TH FLOOR,
KORAMANGALA INDUSTRIAL AREA,
BENGALURU - 560095
REPRESENTED BY ITS
ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR SRI TEJUS REDDY
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI VIVEKANANDA T.P., ADVOCATE)
AND
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,
4TH FLOOR, VIKAS SOUDHA,
DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU - 560001
2. THE BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE
N R SQUARE, BENGALURU - 560002
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER
163
3. THE JOINT DIRECTOR
TOWN PLANNING (NORTH)
BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
N R SQUARE, BENGALURU - 560002
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI R.SRINIVAS GOWDA, AGA FOR R1;
SRI SREENIDHI V. AND SMT.SINCHANA M.R.,
ADVOCATES FOR R2 AND R3 (PHYSICAL HEARING))
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH
THE DEMAND NOTICE DTD: 6.9.2019 AT ANNEXURE-E
ISSUED BY THE R-3 ONLY IN SO FAR AS THE DEMAND OF
SUM OF RS.25,70,408/- TOWARDS GROUND RENT AND
GST AT 18% ON THE GROUND RENT AT RS.4,62,673/-
LICENSE FEE OF RS.25,70,408/- SCRUTINY FEE OF
RS.1,28,520/- IN RESPECT OF ISSUE OF OCCUPANCY
CERTIFICATE AND MODIFIED PLAN ETC.
IN WRIT PETITION No.46939/2019
BETWEEN
M/S ADARSH DEVELOPERS
A PARTNERSHIP FIRM HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE
AT NO.10, VITAL MALLYA ROAD,
REPRESENTED BY ITS
PARTNER AND AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY,
SRI B.M.JAYESHANKAR.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI SAMMITH.S., ADVOCATE)
AND
1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS ADDITIONAL CHIEF
SECRETARY,
164
HOME DEPARTMENT,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU-560001.
2 . THE UNDERSECRETARY
MINISTRY OF LABOUR,
VIKASA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU-560001.
3 . THE COMMISSIONER
BRUHAT BENGALURU
MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
N.R.SQUARE,
BENGALURU-560002.
4 . THE JOINT DIRECTOR
TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (SOUTH),
BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
N.R.SQUARE,
BENGALURU-560002.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI R SRINIVAS GOWDA, AGA FOR R1 & R2,
SRI SREENIDHI V & SMT SINCHANA M.R., ADVOCATES
FOR R3 & R4 (PHYSICAL HEARING))
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE GOVERNMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE R-2
DATED 18.01.2007 AND THE CORRIGENDUM THEREIN
DATED 28.02.2007 MANDATING UPFRONT COLLECTION
OF LABOUR WELFARE CESS, AS CONTAINED IN ANNX-B,
CIRCULAR ISSUED BY THE R-2 COMMISSIONER DATED
4.9.2015 LEVYING FEES FOR ISSUE OF BUILDING
LICENSE/SANCTION PLAN AS, AS CONTAINED IN ANNX-C,
AND THE DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED BY THE R-3 ADDL.
DIRECTOR DATED 09.09.2019, AS CONTAINED IN ANNX-D
AND ETC.,
165
IN WRIT PETITION No.50186/2019
BETWEEN
1 . SMT PARIMALA DESAI
W/O LATE DR. P.R.DESAI
AGED ABOUT 83 YEARS,
2 . SRI. ARVIND DESAI
S/O LATE DR. P.R. DESAI
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS,
3 . DR. MOHINI N PRASAD
D/O LATE DR.P.R.DESAI,
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,
4 . DR KAMINI A RAO
D/O LATE DR P.R.DESAI,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
5 . DR. NALINI KRISHNAN
D/O LATE DR. P.R.DESAI
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
6 . DR. ANIL DESAI
S/O LATE DR. P.R.DESAI
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
PETITIONERS 1 TO 6 ARE ALL
RESIDING AT NO.6
KUMARA KRUPA ROAD
KUMARCOT LAYOUT, MADHAVANAGAR
BENGALURU - 560 001
PETITIONER NOS. 1-6 ARE
REPRESENTED BY THEIR GPA HOLDER
M/S ADARSH DEVELOPERS
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT
166
NO.10, VITTAL MALLYA ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 001
REP. BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY
SRI B.M.JAYESHANKAR
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI SAMMITH S., ADVOCATE)
AND
1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS ADDITIONAL CHIEF
SECRETARY
HOME DEPARTMENT
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BENGALURU - 560 001
2 . THE UNDERSECRETARY
MINISTRY OF LABOUR
VIKASA SOUDHA
BENGALURU - 560 001
3 . THE COMMISSIONER
BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE
N.R.SQUARE,
BENGALURU - 560 002
4 . THE JOINT DIRECTOR
TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (NORTH)
BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE
N.R.SQUARE
BENGALURU -560 002
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI R SRINIVAS GOWDA, AGA FOR R1 & R2,
SRI SREENIDHI V & SMT SINCHANA M.R., ADVOCATES
FOR R3 & R4 (PHYSICAL HEARING))
167
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE GOVERNMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE R.2
DATED 18.01.2007 AND THE CORRIGENDUM THEREIN
DATED 28.02.2007 MANDATING UPFRONT COLLECTION
OF LABOUR WELFARE CESS, AS CONTAINED IN
ANNEXURE-C, CIRCULAR ISSUED BY THE R.3
COMMISSIONER DATED 4.9.2015 LEVYING FEES FOR
ISSUE OF BUILDING LICENSE/SANCTION PLAN AS, AS
CONTAINED IN ANNEXURE-D, AND THE DEMAND NOTICE
ISSUED BY THE R.4 ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR, DEMAND
NOTICE DATED 17.10.2019, AS CONTAINED IN
ANNEXURE-E AND ETC.,
IN WRIT PETITION No.50280/2019
BETWEEN
M/S ADARSH HAVEN PVT LTD
A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT
NO.10, VITTAL MALLYA ROAD
BENGALURU-560 001
REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY
SRI B M KARUNESH
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI SAMMITH.S., ADVOCATE)
AND
1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS ADDITIONL CHIEF
SECRETARY
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BENGALURU-560 001
2 . THE UNDER SECRETARY
168
MINISTRY OF LABOUR
VIKASA SOUDHA
BENGALURU-560 001
3 . THE COMMISSIONER
BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE
N R SQUARE
BENGALURU-560 002
4 . THE JOINT DIRECTOR
TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (NORTH)
BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE
N R SQUARE
BENGALURU-560 002
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI R SRINIVAS GOWDA, AGA FOR R1 & R2
SRI SREENIDHI V & SMT SINCHANA M.R., ADVOCATES
FOR R3 & R4))
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE GOVERNMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE R.2
DATED 18.01.2007 AND THE CORRIGENDUM THEREIN
DATED 28.02.2007 MANDATING UPFRONT COLLECTION
OF LABOUR WELFARE CESS, AS CONTAINED IN
ANNEXURE-C, CIRCULAR ISSUED BY THE R.2
COMMISSIONER DATED 4.9.2015 LEVYING FEES FOR
ISSUE OF BUILDING LICENSE/SANCTION PLAN, AS
CONTAINED IN ANNEXURE-D AND THE DEMAND NOTICE
ISSUED BY THE R.3 ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR DEMAND
NOTICE DATED 25.10.2019 AS CONTAINED IN ANNEXURE-
E AND ETC.,
IN WRIT PETITION No.50442/2019
BETWEEN
1 . SMT. AMMAYYA @ AMMAYAMMA
169
W/O LATE G V NARASIMHAIAH
AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS,
TH
RESIDING AT NO.355, 5 MAIN,
NEAR JAIN TEMPLE, BSK I STAGE,
ST
1 BLOCK, SRINAGAR
BENGALURU-560050
REPRESENTED BY HER GPA HOLDER
M/S VASUNDRA BUILDER
BY ITS PARTNERS
SRI C SUBRAMANI
SRI V UMASHANKAR
2 . M/S VASUNDRA BUILDER
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.321
BASEMENT FLOOR,
TH
5 CROSS ROAD,
TH RD
5 BLOCK, BSK 3 STAGE,
RD
3 PHASE, BENGALURU-560085
REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNERS
a. SRI C SUBRAMANI
S/O LATE CHINNASWAMY NAIDU
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
b. SRI V UMASHANKAR
S/O SRI B VENKATARATHNAM NAIDU
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI B. PRAMOD, ADVOCATE)
AND
1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THE URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,
VIKASA SOUDHA,
DR B R AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU-560001
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
170
2 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THE LABOUR DEPARTMENT,
VIKASA SOUDHA
DR B R AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU-560001
REPRESENTED BY ITS UNDER SECRETARY
3 . BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE
N R SQUARE
BENGALURU-560002
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER
4 . THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR
TOWN PLANNING (RAJARAJESHWARINAGARA)
BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE
18TH CROSS, IDEAL HOMES LAYOUT,
R R NAGAR, NEAR BESCOM OFFICE,
BENGALURU-560098
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI R SRINIVAS GOWDA, AGA FOR R1 & R2,
SRI SREENIDHI V & SMT SINCHANA M.R., ADVOCATES
FOR R3 & R4 (PHYSICAL HEARING)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE CIRCULAR DTD.4.9.2015 ISSUED BY THE R.3
ANENXURE.E IN SO FAR AS PETITIONERS IS CONCERNED.
IN WRIT PETITION No.50652/2019
BETWEEN
1 . ALEKHYA PROPERTY DEVELOPMENTS PVT LTD
A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY HAVING ITS
REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.10,
VITTAL MALLYA ROAD,
171
BENGALURU-560001
REPRESENTED BY ITS
AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY
SRI B M JAYESHANKAR
2 . SRI B S BHASKAR REDDY
S/O LATE SRI G SRINIVAS REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
(SENIOR CITIZEN BENEFIT NOT CLAIMED)
R/AT NO.A, SUNRISE VILLAS,
NEAR TRINITY MEADOWS,
BELLANDUR MAIN ROAD,
BELLANDUR POST,
BENGALURU-560037
3 . SRI S RUKMANGADAA
S/O LATE SRI G SRINIVAS REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
ST
R/AT NO.697, 21 CROSS,
22ND MAIN, SECTOR 2, HSR LAYOUT,
BENGALURU-560034
4 . SRI B S GOPAL
S/O LATE SRI G SRINIVAS REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
TH
R/AT NO.2069, 24 MAIN,
SECTOR 1, HSR LAYOUT,
BENGALURU-560034
PETITIONER NOS.2 TO 4 ARE
REPRESENTED BY THEIR GPA HOLDER
M/S ADARSH DEVELOPERS,
A PARTNERSHIP FIRM
HAVING ITS REGISTERED
OFFICE AT NO.10,
VITTAL MALLYA ROAD,
BENGALURU-560001
REPRESENTED BY ITS
PARTNER AND AUTHORIZED
172
SIGNATORY SRI B.M.JAYESHANKAR
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI SAMMITH.S., ADVOCATE)
AND
1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS ADDITIONAL CHIEF
SECRETARY,
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU-560001
2 . THE UNDER SECRETARY
MINISTRY OF LABOUR,
VIKASA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU-560001
3 . THE COMMISSIONER,
BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
N R SQUARE, BENGALURU-560002
4 . THE JOINT DIRECTOR,
TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (NORTH)
BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
N R SQUARE,
BENGALURU-560002
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI R SRINIVAS GOWDA, AGA FOR R1 & R2,
SRI SREENIDHI V & SMT SINCHANA M.R., ADVOCATES
FOR R3 & R4 (PHYSICAL HEARING))
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE GOVERNMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE R.2
DATED 18.01.2007 AND THE CORRIGENDUM THEREIN
DATED 28.02.2007 MANDATING UPFRONT COLLECTION
173
OF LABOUR WELFARE CESS, AS CONTAINED IN
ANNEXURE-D, CIRCULAR ISSUED BY THE R.2
COMMISSIONER DATED 4.9.2015 LEVYING FEES FOR
ISSUE OF BUILDING LICENSE/SANCTION PLAN AS
CONTAINED IN ANNEXURE-E AND THE DEMAND NOTICE
ISSUED BY THE R.3 ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR DEMAND
NOTICE DATED 25.10.2019 AS CONTAINED IN ANNEXURE-
F AND ETC.,
IN WRIT PETITION No.51603/2019
BETWEEN
1 . M/S. RAPSRI ENGINEERING INDUSTRIES LIMITED
A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE
COMPANIES ACT 1956,
REGISTERED AND CORPORATE OFFICE AT
NO.39/40, GOWDANAPALYA,
SUBRAMANYAPURA POST,
BENGALURU-560061
REPRESENTED BY ITS POWER ATTORNEY HOLDER,
M/S SOBHA DEVELOPERS LIMITED.
THROUGH MR RAGHAVENDRA N R
2 . M/S SOBHA LIMITED
(FORMERLY SOBHA DEVELOPERS LIMITED)
A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE
COMPANIES ACT, 1956,
REGISTERED AND CORPORATE OFFICE AT,
’SOBHA’, SARJAPUR-MARTHAHALLI OUTER RING
ROAD, (ORR)
DEVARABEESANAHALLI, BELLANDUR POST,
BENGALURU-560103
REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY,
MR RAGHAVENDRA N R
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI MADHUKAR DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE)
174
AND
1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,
4TH FLOOR, VIKAS SOUDHA,
AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU-560001
2 . BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER,
N R SQUARE, BENGALURU-560002
3 . JOINT DIRECTOR,
TOWN PLANNING (SOUTH)
BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
N R SQUARE,
BENGALURU-560002
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI R. SRINIVAS GOWDA, AGA FOR R-1,
SRI SREENIDHI V & SMT SINCHANA M.R., ADVOCATES
FOR R2 & R3 (PHYSICAL HEARING))
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
DECLARE THE BYE LAWS NO.3.9 OF THE BANGALORE
MAHANAGARA PALIKE BUILDING BYE LAWS 2003
(ANNEXURE-A) AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL, ILLEGAL AND
ULRA VIRES & ETC.,
IN WRIT PETITION No.51825/2019
BETWEEN
SRI. P.H. VENKATARAMANAPPA
SON OF HULIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS
RESIDING AT 2ND CROSS, GUNJURPALYA VILLAGE
175
VARTHUR HOBLI,
BENGALURU EAST TALUK
BENGALURU
REPRESENTED BY HIS GPA HOLDER
M/S SVR BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT
DSR DIYA ARCADE, NO.220,
4TH FLOOR, 9TH MAIN,
ST
HRBR LAYOUT, 1 BLOCK EXTN
KALYANNAGAR
BENGALURU - 560043
REPRESENTED BY ITS
AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY
AND MANAGING PARTNER
SRI N RAVEENDRA KUMAR REDDY
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI SAMMITH.S., ADVOCATE)
AND
1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS ADDITIONAL CHIEF
SECRETARY
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BENGALURU - 560001
2 . THE UNDER SECRETARY
MINISTRY OF LABOUR
VIKASA SOUDHA
BENGALURU - 560001
3 . THE COMMISSIONER
BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE
N R SQUARE
BENGALURU - 560002
176
4 . THE JOINT DIRECTOR
TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (NORTH)
BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE
N R SQUARE
BENGALURU - 560002
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI R SRINIVAS GOWDA, AGA FOR R1 & R2,
SRI SREENIDHI V & SMT SINCHANA M.R.,
ADVOCATES FOR R3 & R4 (PHYSICAL HEARING))
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE GOVERNMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE R-2
DATED 18.01.2007 AND THE CORRIGENDUM THEREIN
DATED 28.02.2007 MANDATING UPFRONT COLLECTION
OF LABOUR WELFARE CESS, AS CONTAINED IN ANNX-C,
CIRCULAR ISSUED BY THE R-2 COMMISSIONER DATED
4.9.2015 LEVYING FEES FOR ISSUE OF BUILDING
LICENSE/SANCTION PLAN AS CONTAINED IN ANNX-D,
AND THE DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED BY THE R-3 ADDL.
DIRECTOR DATED 12.07.2019, AS CONTAINED IN ANNX-E.
IN WRIT PETITION No.52084/2019
BETWEEN
1. SRI SHIVALINGAIAH
S/O SRI LINGE GOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 84 YEARS.
2. SMT. SAVITHRAMMA
W/O SRI SHIVALINGAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS.
PETITIONERS NO.1 AND 2
ARE RESIDING AT
TH
NO.553, 7 MAIN,
TH
4 CROSS, RPC LAYOUT,
177
VIJAYANAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 040.
3. SRI PRADEEP KRISHNAPPA
S/O SRI M KRISHNAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS.
RESIDING AT NO.2937/38E,
SERVICE ROAD,
ND
VIJAYANAGAR, 2 STAGE,
BENGALURU - 560 040.
4. SRI ARUN KUMAR
S/O SRI NAGARAJ
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS.
TH
RESIDING AT NO.11, 11 MAIN ROAD,
ATTIGUPPE, VIJAYANAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 040.
5. SRI K H MANJAPPA
S/O SRI HANUMANTHAIAH
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
TH
RESIDING AT NO.465, 4 B MAIN ROAD,
TH TH
4 STAGE, 4 BLOCK,
WEST OF CHORD ROAD, MAGADI ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 079.
6. SMT. PANKAJA M.S.,
W/O LATE SRI CHANDRASHEKARAIAH
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
RESIDING AT KODIYAALA VILLAGE,
BIDADI HOBLI,
RAMANAGARA TALUK AND DISTRICT.
7. SRI RAJU
S/O SRI DEVARAJU,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.1205/46,
ST
1 MAIN, MC LAYOUT, VIJAYANAGAR,
BENGALURU – 560 040.
178
PETITIONER NO. 1-7 ARE REPRESENTED BY
THEIR POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER
M/S APG HABITAT PVT. LTD.,
A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY HAVING ITS
REGISTERED OFFICE AT
NO. 2/1, EMBASSY ICON ANNEXE,
INFANTRY ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 001
REPRESENTED BY ITS
AUTHORISED SIGNATORY
SRI SOMASUDARAM THIRUPPATHI
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI SAMMITH S., ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS
ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. THE UNDER SECRETARY
MINISTRY OF LABOUR,
VIKASA SOUDHA
BENGALURU – 560 001.
3. THE COMMISSIONER
BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE
N.R.SQUARE, BENGALURU – 560 002.
4. THE JOINT DIRECTOR
TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (NORTH)
BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE
N.R.SQUARE,
BENGALURU – 560 002.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI R.SRINIVAS GOWDA, AGA FOR R1 & R2
179
(PHYSICAL HEARING);
SRI V.SREENIDHI AND SMT.SINCHANA M.R.,
ADVOCATE R3 AND R4)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE GOVERNMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE R-2
DATED 18.01.2007 AND THE CORRIGENDUM THEREIN
DATED 28.02.2007 MANDATING UPFRONT COLLECTION
OF LABOUR WELFARE CESS, AS CONTAINED IN
ANENXURE-C, CIRCULAR ISSUED BY THE R-3
COMMISSIONER DATED 4.9.2015 LEVYING FEES FOR
ISSUE OF BUILDING LICENSE/SANCTION PLAN AS
CONTAINED IN ANNEXURE-D AND THE DEMAND NOTICE
ISSUED BY THE R-4 JOINT DIRECTOR DEMAND NOTICE
DATED 29.11.2019 AS CONTAINED IN ANNEXURE-E AND
ETC.,
IN WRIT PETITION No.52669/2019
BETWEEN
1. SRI N.PRAKASH
S/O LATE M.NANJAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS.
2. SRI P.K.RAJAGOPAL
S/O LATE SRI P.N.KRISHNAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS.
PETITIONER NOS.1 & 2 ARE RESIDING AT
PARVATHAMMA BUILDING,
THINDLU VILLAGE,
VIDYARANYAPURA POST,
BENGALURU – 560 097.
PETITIONER NOS.1 & 2 ARE
REPRESENTED BY THEIR GPA HOLDER
M/S SUMADHURA INFRACON PVT. LTD.,
A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY HAVING
180
ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.43,
ND
CKB PLAZA, 2 FLOOR,
VARTHUR MAIN ROAD,
MARATHAHALLI,
BENGALURU – 560 037
REP. BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY
SRI BHARAT KUMAR KANDUKURI.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI SAMMITH S., ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS
ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY,
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU – 560 001.
2. THE UNDER SECRETARY
MINISTRY OF LABOUR
VIKASA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU – 560 001.
3. THE COMMISSIONER
BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
N.R.SQUARE, BENGALURU – 560 002.
4. THE JOINT DIRECTOR
TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (NORTH)
BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
N.R.SQUARE, BENGALURU – 560 002.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI R. SRINIVAS GOWDA, AGA FOR R1
SRI SREENIDHI V., AND SMT.SINCHANA M.R.,
ADVOCATES FOR R2, R3 AND R4 (PHYSICAL HEARING))
181
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE GOVERNMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE R-2
DATED 18.01.2007 AND THE CORRIGENDUM THEREIN
DATED 28.02.2007 MANDATING UPFRONT COLLECTION
OF LABOUR WELFARE CESS, AS CONTAINED IN ANNX-C,
CIRCULAR ISSUED BY THE R-3 COMMISSIONER DATED
4.9.2015 LEVYING FEES FOR ISSUE OF BUILDING
LICENSE/SANCTION PLAN AS, AS CONTAINED IN ANNX-D,
AND THE DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED BY THE R-4
ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR DATED 11.12.2019, AS
CONTAINED IN ANNX-E AND ETC.,
IN WRIT PETITION No.52682/2019
BETWEEN
M/S SOBHA LIMITED
(FORMERLY SOBHA DEVELOPERS LIMITED)
A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER
THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT,
SOBHA, SARJAPUR MARTHAHALLI
OUTER RING ROAD (ORR)
DEVARABEESANAHALLI, BELLANDUR POST,
BENGALURU - 560 103
REP BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY
MR.RAGHAVENDRA N.R.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI MADHUKAR DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,
4TH FLOOR, VIKAS SOUDHA,
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU - 560 001
182
2. BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE
REP BY ITS COMMISSIONER,
N.R.SQUARE, BENGALURU - 560 002.
3. JOINT DIRECTOR, TOWN PLANNING (NORTH)
BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE
N.R.SQUARE, BENGALURU - 560 002.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI R.SRINIVAS GOWDA, AGA FOR R1
SRI SREENIDHI V., AND SMT.SINCHANA M.R.,
ADVOCATES FOR R2 AND R3 (PHYSICAL HEARING))
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
DECLARE THE BYELAWS NO.3.9 OF THE BANGALORE
MAHANAGARA PALIKE BUILDING BYE-LAWS 2003 (ANNX-
A) AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL, ILLEGAL AND ULTRA VIRUS
ETC.
IN WRIT PETITION No.135/2020
BETWEEN
1. K S JUNJAPPA
AGED 78 YEARS
S/O LATE SIDDAPPA
2 . SMT. GOWRAMMA
AGED 73 YEARS
W/O SRI K.S.JUNJAPPA
3 . SRI.J.ANANDA
AGED 44 YEARS
S/O SRI K.S.JUNJAPPA
ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO.328
RESIDING AT NO.328, JUNJAPPA COMPLEX,
KALKERE VILLAGE, K.R.PURAM HOBLI, BENGALURU
EAST TALUK, BENGALURU-560043.
183
REPRESENTED BY THEIR GPA HOLDER
M/S. S.K.DEWLLINGS LLP
FORMERLY KNOWN AS M/S. S.K.PROJECTS
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT UNIT NO.A1, SAI HOME
STYLE, DODDATHOGURU, ELECTRONIC CITY,
BENGALURU-560100
REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER
SRI PAPAIAH N @ PAPI REDDY
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI VIVEKANANDA T P, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
TH
4 FLOOR, VIKAS SODUHA, DR.AMBEDKAR
VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560001.
2 . STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR
VIKASA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
3 . THE BRUHATH BANGALORE MAHABAGARA PALIKE
N.R.SQUARE, BENGALURU-560002.
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER
4 . THE JOINT DIRECTOR
TOWN PLANNING (NORTH)
BUILDING LICENSE CELL,
BRUHATH BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
N.R.SQUARE,
BENGALURU-560002.
... RESPONDENTS
184
(BY SRI R. SRINIVAS GOWDA, AGA FOR R1 AND R2,
SRI SREENIDHI V AND SMT.SINCHANA M.R.,
ADVOCATES FOR R3 AND R4 (PHYSICAL HEARING))
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH
THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED NIL SIGNED ON 12.12.2019
AT ANNX-D ISSUED BY THE R-4 IN SO FAR AS THE
DEMAND OF RS.1,61,698/- TOWARDS SCRUTINY FEE,
RS.32,33,969/- TOWARDS LICENSE FEE, RS.23,31,740/-
TOWARDS GROUND RENT AND GST, RS.24,46,655/-
TOWARDS SECURITY DEPOSIT AND ALSO INSOFAR AS
THE CONSTRUCTION WORKERS WELFARE CESS OF
RS.37,71,000/- IS CONCERNED AND ETC.,
IN WRIT PETITION No.388/2020
BETWEEN
M/S SOBHA LIMITED
A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER
THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956
AND HAVIANG ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT
SOBHA SARJAPUR MARTHAHALLI OUTER
RING ROAD (ORR)
DEVARABEESANAHALLI, BELLANDOUR POST,
BENGALURU - 560 103
REP BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY
SRI RAJESH MARATHE
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI MADHUKAR DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,
185
TH
4 FLOOR, VIKAS SOUDHA,
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE
REP BY ITS COMMISSIONER,
N.R.SQUARE, BENGALURU - 560 002.
3. JOINT DIRECTOR
TOWN PLANNING (NORTH)
BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE
N.R.SQUARE, BENGALURU - 560 002.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI R.SRINIVAS GOWDA, AGA FOR R1;
SRI SREENIDHI V. AND SMT.SINCHANA M.R.,
ADVOCATES FOR R2 AND R3 (PHYSICAL HEARING))
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
DECLARE THE BYELAWS NO.3.9 OF THE BANGALORE
MAHANAGARA PALIKE BUILDING BYE-LAWS 2003 (ANNX-
A) AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL, ILLEGAL AND ULTRA VIRES
ETC.
IN WRIT PETITION No.3771/2020
BETWEEN
M/S. CHIMES EDUCATIONAL TRUST
A PUBLIC CHARITABLE TRUST,
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.5,
PATALAMMA TEMPLE STREET,
BASAVANAGUDI,
BENGALURU - 560004.
REP. BY ITS TRUSTEE
SMT. BRINDA SRINIVAS
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI SAMMITH S., ADVOCATE)
186
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS ADDITIONAL CHIEF SCECRETARY,
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU-560001.
2. THE UNDERSECRETARY
MINISTRY OF LABOUR,
VIKASA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU-560001.
3. THE COMMISSIONER
BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
N.R.SQUARE, BENGALURU-560002.
4. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR
TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (SOUTH),
BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
TH TH ND
9 CROSS, 9 MAIN ROAD, JAYANAGAR 2
BLOCK,
BENGALURU-560011.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI R.SRINIVAS GOWDA, AGA FOR R1 AND R2;
SRI SREENIDHI V. AND SMT.SINCHANA M.R.,
ADVOCATES
FOR R3 AND R4 (PHYSICAL HEARING))
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE GOVERNMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE R-2
DATED 18.01.2007 AND THE CORRIGENDUM THEREIN
DATED 28.02.2007 MANDATING UPFRONT COLLECTION
OF LABOUR WELFARE CESS, AS CONTAINED IN ANNX-C,
CIRCULAR ISSUED BY THE R-2 COMMISSIONER DATED
4.9.2015 LEVYING FEES FOR ISSUE OF BUILDING
LICENSE/SANCTION PLAN AS, AS CONTAINED IN ANNX-D,
187
AND THE DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED BY THE R-3 ADDL.
DIRECTOR DATED 07.02.2020, AS CONTAINED IN ANNX-E
AND ETC.,
IN WRIT PETITION No.4595/2020
BETWEEN
1. SRI B.H.NARAYANASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS
SON OF LATE HANUMEGOWDA
2. SMT. RUKMINIYAMMA
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS
W/O B.H.NARAYANASWAMY
3. DR.B.N.PAVITHRA
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
W/O MAHESH RAJ GOPAL
D/O B.H.NARAYANASWAMY.
4. SRI.B.N.PRAVEEN
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
S/O B.H.NARAYANASWAMY
5. SRI.B.N.RAKESH
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
S/O B.H.NARAYANASWAMY
TH
RESIDING AT NO.566, 7 A MAIN,
‘A’ SECTOR, YELAHANKA NEW TOWN,
BENGALURU – 560 064.
ALL ARE REPRESENTED BY THEIR GPA HOLDER
M/S. VIKRAM STRUCTURES PVT. LTD.,
REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT,
TH
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.22, 5 ‘A’ MAIN,
NEAR BAPTIST HOSPITAL,
BEHIND ROYAL SENATE HOTEL,
188
HEBBAL, BENGALURU – 560 024.
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
MR. VIKRAM PRABHAKAR.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI VIVEKANANDA T.P., ADVOCATE)
AND
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,
TH
4 FLOOR, VIKAS SOUDHA,
DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU – 560 001.
2. THE BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE
N.R.SQUARE, BENGALURU – 560 002.
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER.
3. THE JOINT DIRECTOR
TOWN PLANNING (SOUTH),
BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
N.R.SQUARE, BENGALURU – 560 002.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI R.SRINIVAS GOWDA, AGA FOR R1;
SRI SREENIDHI V. AND SMT.SINCHANA M.R.,
ADVOCATES FOR R2 AND R3 (PHYSICAL HEARING))
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH
THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 18.02.2020 AT ANNX-F
ISSUED BY THE R-3 ONLY IN SO FAR AS THE DEMAND OF
RS.1,73,70,769/- TOWARDS THE GROUND RENT AND GST
OF RS.31,26,738/- AND RS.5,52,706/- TOWARDS
SCRUTINY FEE AND ETC.,
189
IN WRIT PETITION No.5087/2020
BETWEEN
1 . SRI B H NARAYANAPPA
AGED 76 YEARS
S/O LATE HANUMANTHARAYAPPA
2 . SMT C RUKMINI
AGED 50 YEARS
W/O B H NARAYANAPPA
3 . SRI B N PAVAN KUMAR
AGED 22 YEARS
S/O B H NARAYANAPPA
ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF
BHATTARAHALLI VILLAGE
BIDARAHALLI HOBLI,
BENGALURU EAST TALUK
BENGALURU
REPRESENTED BY THEIR GPA HOLDER
M/S HEBRON PROPERTIES PVT LTD
A REGISTERED COMPANY
(FORMED OUT OF THE BUSINESS TAKEN OVER
FROM PARTNERSHIP FIRM
M/S VINEYARD PROPERTIES)
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO 5AC -712
TH
5 A CROSS, HRBR LAYOUT
ST
1 BLOCK, KALYAN NAGAR POST
BENGALURU - 560043
REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
SRI SATHISH KOSHY
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI VIVEKANANDA T P, ADVOCATE)
190
AND
1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
TH
4 FLOOR, VIKAS SOUDHA
DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU - 560001
2 . BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE
N R SQUARE, BENGALURU - 560002
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER
3 . THE JOINT DIRECTOR
TOWN PLANNING (SOUTH)
BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE
N R SQUARE
BENGALURU - 560002
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI R SRINIVAS GOWDA, AGA FOR R- 1,
SRI SREENIDHI V & SMT SINCHANA M.R., ADVOCATES
FOR R2 & R3 (PHYSICAL HEARING))
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH
THE DEMAND NOTICE DTD.18.2.2020 AT ANNEXURE-H
ISSUED BY THE R- 3 ONLY INSOFAR AS THE DEMAND OF
RS.20,69,594/- TOWARDS AND GROUND RENT AND GST
OF RS.3,72,527/- AND RS.90,930/- TOWARDS SCRUTINY
FEE.
IN WRIT PETITION No.5758/2020
BETWEEN
M/S AKARSHA REALTY PVT LTD
191
A REGISTERED COMPANY HAVING ITS OFFICE AT
NO.10, VITTAL MALLYA ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 001
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR
SRI B M JAYESHANKAR
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI SAMMITH S., ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS
ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BENGALURU-560 001
2. THE UNDER SECRETARY
MINISTY OF LABOUR
VIKASA SOUDHA
BENGALURU-560 001
3. THE COMMISSIONER
BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHNAGARA PALIKE
N R SQUARE, BENGALURU-560 002
4. THE JOINT DIRECTOR
TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (NORTH)
BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE
N R SQUARE, BENGALURU-560 002
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI R.SRINIVAS GOWDA, AGA FOR R1 AND R2
SRI SREENIDHI V., AND SMT.SINCHANA M.R.,
ADVOCATES FOR R3 AND R4 (PHYSICAL HEARING))
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE GOVERNMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE R02
DATED 18.01.2007 AND THE CORRIGENDUM THEREIN
192
DATED 28.02.2007 MANDATING UPFRONT COLLECTION
OF LABOUR WELFARE CESS, AS CONTAINED IN ANNX-M,
CIRCULAR ISSUED BY THE R-2 COMMISSIONER DATED
4.9.2015 LEVYING FEES FOR ISSUE OF BUILDING
LICENSE/SANCTION PLAN AS, AS CONTAINED IN ANNX-N,
AND THE DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED BY THE R-3
ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR BEARING DEMAND NOTICE
DATED 29.02.2020, AS CONTAINED IN ANNX-P ETC.
IN WRIT PETITION No.6413/2020
BETWEEN
M/S BRIGADE PROPERTIES PVT LTD
A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 29TH FLOOR,
WORLD TRADE CENTRE,
26/1, BRIGADE GATEWAY,
DR RAJKUMAR ROAD,
MALLESHWARAM, RAJAJINAGAR,
BENGALURU 560055.
REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY
SRI UDAYA KUMAR
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI SAMMITH.S., ADVOCATE)
AND
1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS ADDITIONAL CHIEF
SECRETARY, URBAN DEVELOMENT DEPARTMENT,
VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU 560001
2 . THE COMMISSIONER
BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
N R SQUARE,
BENGALURU 560002
193
3 . THE JOINT DIRECTOR
TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (NORTH)
BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
N R SQUARE,
BENGALURU 560002
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI R. SRINIVAS GOWDA, AGA FOR R1,
SRI SREENIDHI V & SMT SINCHANA M.R., ADVOCATES
FOR R2 & R3 (PHYSICAL HEARING))
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE CIRCULAR ISSUED BY THE R-2
COMMISSIONER DATED 4.9.2015 LEVYING FEES FOR
ISSUE OF OCCUPANCY CERTIFICATE, AS CONTAINED IN
ANNEXURE-C AND THE DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED BY THE
R-3 JOINT DIRECTOR DATED 16.03.2020 AS CONTAINED
IN ANNEXURE-D & ETC.,
IN WRIT PETITION No.6633/2020
BETWEEN
1. SMT.NIRMALA
AGED 65 YEARS,
W/O LATE G RAMAKRISHNA REDDY.
2. SRI HEMANTH KUKMAR H.R.,
AGED 47 YEARS,
S/O LATE G.RAMAKRISHNA REDDY.
3. SRI LAKSHMISHA H.R.,
AGED 45 YEARS,
S/O LATE G.RAMAKRISHNA REDDY.
4. SRI PRABHAKAR H.R.,
AGED 43 YEARS,
S/O LATE G RAMAKRISHNA REDDY.
194
PETITIONERS NO.1 TO 4 ARE
RESIDING AT HARALUR VILLAGE,
AGARA POST, BENGALURU EAST TALUK,
BENGALURU.
5. SMT.KASTURI
AGED 41 YEARS,
W/O SRI VINUKAR,
D/O LATE G.RAMAKRISHNA REDDY,
ND
NO.109, 2 ‘A’ CROSS ROAD,
NEAR LAKSHMI NARAYANA TEMPLE,
MUNNEKOLALA,
BENGALURU – 560 037.
REPRESENTED BY THEIR GPA HOLDER,
M/S BREN CORPORATION PVT. LTD.,
A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER
THE COMPANIES ACT HAVING
ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT
THIRD FLOOR, ‘BALAVANA’,
TH
PLOT NO. 61, 5 “A” BLOCK,
KORAMANGALA BENGALURU-560095
BY ITS DIRECTOR,
SRI J.BOOPESH REDDY.
6. M/S BREN CORPORATION
(FORMERLY KNOWN AS SJR ENTERPRISES)
A PROPRIETARY CONCERN THIRD FLOOR,
‘BALAVANA’, PLOT NO.61,
TH
5 “A” BLOCK,
KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU – 560 095
BY ITS SOLE PROPRIETOR,
SRI J.BOOPESH REDDY.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI VIVEKANANDA T.P., ADVOCATE (PHYSICAL
HEARING))
195
AND
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,
TH
4 FLOOR, VIKASA SOUDHA,
DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU – 560 001.
2. STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR,
VIKASA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU - 01
REPRESENTED BY
ITS SECRETARY.
3. THE BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE
N R SQUARE,
BENGALURU – 560 002
REPRESENTED BY
ITS COMMISSIONER.
4. THE JOINT DIRECTOR
TOWN PLANNING (NORTH)
BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
N R SQUARE,
BENGALURU – 560 002.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI R.SRINIVAS GOWDA, AGA FOR R1 AND
R2(PHYSICAL HEARING);
SRI SREENIDHI V., AND SMT.SINCHANA M.R.,
ADVOCATES FOR R3 AND R4 (PHYSICAL HEARING))
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH
THE DEMAND NOTICE DTD. 17.03.2020 AT ANNX-D
ISSUED BY THE R-4 IN SO FAR AS THE DEMAND OF RS.
2,61,999/- TOWARDS SCRUTINY FEE, RS.52,39,970/-
196
TOWARDS LICENSE FEE, RS.30,91,582/- TOWARDS
GROUND RENT AND GST, RS.58,22,189/- TOWARDS
SECURITY DEPOSIT AND ALSO INSOFAR AS THE
CONSTRUCTION WORKERS WELFARE CESS OF RS.
92,17,000/- IS CONCERNED AND ETC.,
IN WRIT PETITION No.7454/2020
BETWEEN
M/S. SOBHA LIMITED
(FORMERLY SOBHA DEVELOPERS LIMITED)
A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES
ACT, 1956
REGISTERED AND CORPORATE OFFICE AT ‘SOBHA’
SARJAPUR-MARTHAHALLI
OUTER RING ROAD (ORR)
DEVARABEESANAHALLI,
BELLANDUR POST,
BENGALURU 560103
REPRESENTED BY ITS
AUTHORISED SIGNATORY
MR. PRASAD M.S
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI MADHUKAR DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE)
AND
1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
TH
4 FLOOR, VIKAS SOUDHA,
AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU-560001
2 . BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER
N.R.SQUARE,
BENGALURU-560002
197
3 . JOINT DIRECTOR
TOWN PLANNING (SOUTH)
BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE
N.R. SQUARE,
BENGALURU-560002.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI R SRINIVAS GOWDA, AGA FOR R1,
SRI SREENIDHI V & SMT SINCHANA M.R., ADVOCATES
FOR R2 & R3 (PHYSICAL HEARING))
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
DECLARE THE BYELAWS NO.3.9 OF THE BANGALORE
MAHANAGARA PALIKE BUILDING BYE-LAWS 2003 VIDE
ANNX-A AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL, ILLEGAL AND ULTRA
VIRES.
IN WRIT PETITION No.7895/2020
BETWEEN
1 . MR RAJA JAYASHANKAR
S/O LATE RAJA SREEKANTAIAH SETTY
AGED 81 YEARS
TH
R/AT NO. 3, 36 CROSS ROD,
8TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR
BANGALOE 560 070
2 . MR. RAJA UDAYSHANKAR
S/O RAJA JAYASHANKAR
55 YEARS, R/AT NO.3,
TH
36 CROSS ROAD,
8TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR
BENGALURU 560 070
3 . MR. RAJA SUCHINDRA
198
SON OF MR. RAJA JAYASHANKAR
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
R/AT F-2, RAJAMAHALAKSHMI
NO.12, BASAPPA ROAD,
SHANTHINAGAR
BENGALURU 560 027
4 . MR. RAJA DATTA KUMAR
SON OF MR. RAJA JAYASHANKAR
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
G-1, ‘MEENAKSHI MANOR’
TH
NO. 14/2, 10 ‘D’ MAIN ROAD,
5TH CROSS ROAD, FIRST BLOCK,
JAYANAGAR
BENGALURU 560 011
5 . MR. C. CHOWRIRAJ
SON OF LATE CHOWRAPPA @ PRAKASHAPPA
74 YEARS
R/AT CHIKKA KAMANAHALLI VILLAGE
GOTTIGERE POST
BANNERGHATTA ROAD,
BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK 560 083
ALL ARE REPRESENTED BY THEIR GENERAL
POWER OF ATTORNEY
PURAVANKARA LIMITED
(FORMERLY PURAVANKARA PROJECTS LTD)
A COMPANY INCORPRATED UNDER THE
PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE
AT 130/1, ULSOOR ROAD,
BENGALURU 566043
REPRESENTED BY ITS
AUTHORISED SIGNATORY
MR. B. PRAVEEN KUMAR
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI JOSEPH ANTHONY, ADVOCATE)
199
AND
1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
VIKASA SOUDHA
BENGALURU 560001
REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY
2 . BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE
HUDSON CIRCLE
BENGALURU 560 027
REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER
3 . JOINT DIRECTOR (TOWN PLANNING-SOUTH)
BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE
N.R. CIRCLE
BENGALURU 560 002
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI R SRINIVAS GOWDA, AGA FOR R1,
SRI SREENIDHI V & SMT SINCHANA M.R., ADVOCATES
FOR R2 & R3 (PHYSICAL HEARING))
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH
THE IMPUGNED DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED ON MAY 20,
2020 BY THE R-3 (ANNEXURE-A) AS REGARD THE
DEMAND MADE AT SL.NO.2 (GROUND RENT).
IN WRIT PETITION No.7949/2020
BETWEEN
M/S R.K. SURAKSHA PROPERTIES
A PARTNERSHIP FIRM
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.80/3
80 FEET ROAD,
200
AREKERE
OPP SAI BABA TAMPLE
B G ROAD
BENGALURU-76
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER
SRI V RAMESH KUMAR
S/O LATE CHANDRASHEKAR NAIDU
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI B. PRAMOD, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
THE URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
VIKASA SOUDHA
DR B R AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU-560001
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
2 . STATE OF KARNATAKA
THE LABOUR DEPARTMENT
VIKASA SOUDHA
DR B R AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU-560001
REPRESENTED BY ITS UNDER SECRETARY
3. BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGAR PALIKE
N R SQUARE
BENGALURU-560002
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER
4. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR TOWN PLANNING
BOMMANAHALLI DIVISION
BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE
BEGUR MAIN ROAD,
BOMMANAHALLI
BENGALURU-560068
... RESPONDENTS
201
(BY SRI R SRINIVAS GOWDA, AGA FOR R1 AND R2,
SRI SREENIDHI V & SMT SINCHANA M.R., ADVOCATES
FOR R3 AND R4 (PHYSICAL HEARING))
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE CIRCULAR DATED 04.09.2015 ISSUED BY
THE R-3 ANNEXURE-E IN SO FAR THE PETITIONER IS
CONCERNED & ETC.,
IN WRIT PETITION No.7973/2020
BETWEEN
M/S BHARTIYA URBAN PRIVATE LIMITED
(ERSTWHILE, BHARTIYA CITY DEVELOPERS PVT.LTD.)
A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE
COMPANIES ACT,1956
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT
56/7, NALLAMBAKKAM VILLAGE (VIA VANDALUR)
CHENNAI
TAMIL NADU-600048
AND CORPORATE OFFICE AT
5/1, PALACE ROAD
BENGALURU-560 001
REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY
MR SHAMA SUNDER R J
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI SANJAY NAIR, ADVOCATE)
AND
1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
TH
4 FLOOR, VIKAS SOUDHA
202
AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU-560 001
2 . BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE
N R SQUARE
BENGALURU-560 002
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER
3 . JOINT DIRECTOR
TOWN PLANNING (NORTH)
BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE
N R SQUARE
BENGALURU-560 002
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI R. SRINIVAS GOWDA, AGA FOR R1,
SRI SREENIDHI V & SMT SINCHANA M.R., ADVOCATES
FOR R2 & R3 (PHYSICAL HEARING))
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
DECLARE THE BYE LAW NO.3.9 OF THE BANGALORE
MAHANAGARA PALIKE BUILDING BYE-LAWS 2003
ANNEXURE-A AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL, ILLEGAL AND
ULTRA VIRES & ETC.,
IN WRIT PETITION No.8026/2020
BETWEEN
1 . SRI. B.K. VASUDEV PRADEEP
S/O LATE V. KRISHNAPPA
43 YEARS
2 . SRI. B.K. RAGHAVENDRA PRAMOD
S/O LATE V. KRISHNAPPA
41 YEARS
203
BOTH ARE R/AT NO. 8,
GANESHA NILAYA, 8TH AND 9TH CROSS,
INDIRA GANDHI CIRCLE
BEHIND SBM, SARAKKI
BENGALURU SOUTH, JP NAGAR
BENGALURU 560 078
REPRESENTED BY THEIR GPA HOLDER
M/S S.K. SURAKSHA PROPERTIES
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER
SRI. V. RAMESH KUMAR
S/O LATE CHANDRASHEKAR NAIDU
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
3 . M/S S.K. SURAKSHA PROPERTIES
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO. 36/52,
TH TH
11 A MAIN, 27 CROSS,
JAYANAGAR 4TH BLOCK EAST
BENGALURU 560 011
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER
SRI. V. RAMESH KUMAR
S/O LATE CHANDRASHEKAR NAIDU
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI B. PRAMOD, ADVOCATE)
AND
1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THE URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
VIKASA ASOUDHA, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BANGALLORE 560 001
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
2 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THE LABOUR DEPARTMENT
VIKASA SOUDHA,
DR. B.R AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
204
BENGALURU 560 001
RERPESENTED BY ITS UNDER SECRETARY
3 . BRUHATH BANGALORE MAHANAGAR PALIKE
N.R. SQUARE
BENGALURU 560002
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER
4 . THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR
TOWN PLANNING (RAJARAJESHWARINAGARA)
BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE
TH
18 CROSS, IDEAL HOMES LAYOUT
R.R. NAGAR, NEAR BESCOM OFFICE
BENGALURU 560 098
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI R SRINIVAS GOWDA, AGA FOR R1 AND R2,
SRI SREENIDHI V & SMT SINCHANA M.R., ADVOCATES
FOR R3 & R4 (PHYSICAL HEARING))
IN WRIT PETITION No.8133/2020
BETWEEN
1. SMT. MANI R.N.,
AGED 54 YEARS,
D/O LATE K.RAJASHEKAR,
W/O SRI T.C.RAJEEV,
TH
R/AT NO 313/A, 9 MAIN,
TH
5 BLOCK, JAYANAGAR,
BENGALURU – 560 041.
2. SRI SHIVA SHANKAR R.,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
S/O LATE K.RAJASHEKAR,
TH
R/AT NO 3810, 14 CROSS,
ND
HAL 2 STAGE, INDIRANAGAR,
BENGALURU – 560 038.
205
3. SMT. SHASHIKALA SHILPA R.,
AGED 44 YEARS,
D/O LATE K.RAJASHEKAR,
W/O SATISH NAGARAJAN MARUPALLY,
R/AT NO.17, RUDRA NILAYA,
SANTHOSHIMATHA TEMPLE STREET,
ARAKERE, BANNERGHATTA ROAD,
BENGALURU – 560 076.
PETITIONERS ARE REPRESENTED BY
M/S. LEGACY GLOBAL PROJECTS PVT. LTD.,
A REGISTERED COMPANY,
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.333,
ND
2 FLOOR, NOVA MILLER, THIMMAIAH ROAD,
BENGALURU – 560 052
BY ITS JOINT MANAGING DIRECTOR,
SRI SANJAY SHENOY.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI VIVEKANANDA T.P., ADVOCATE)
AND
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,
TH
4 FLOOR, VIKAS SOUDHA,
DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU – 560 001.
2. THE BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE
N.R.SQUARE, BENGALURU – 560 002
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER.
3. THE JOINT DIRECTOR
TOWN PLANNING (NORTH),
BUILDING LICENSE CELL (NORTH)
BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
N.R.SQUARE, BENGALURU – 560 002.
... RESPONDENTS
206
(BY SRI R.SRINIVAS GOWDA, AGA FOR R1;
SRI SREENIDHI V., AND SMT.SINCHANA M.R.,
ADVOCATES FOR R2 AND R3 (PHYSICAL HEARING))
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH
THE DEMAND NOTICE SIGNED ON 13.05.2020 AT
ANNEXURE-H ISSUED BY THE R-3 IN SO FAR AS THE
DEMAND OF RS.4,34,217/- TOWARDS SCRUTINY FEE,
RS.73,96,702/- TOWARDS LICENSE FEE, RS.90,97,159/-
TOWARDS GROUND RENT AND GST IS CONCERNED AND
ETC.,
IN WRIT PETITION No.8538/2020
BETWEEN
M/S KLASSIK ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD.,
A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE
INDIAN COMPANIES ACT 1956,
REGISTERED OFFICE AT
SY.NO.10/1 AND 11/1,
KALENA AGRAHARA, NEAR MEENAKSHI TEMPLE,
BANNERGHATTA ROAD,
BENGALURU – 560 076
REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR
SRI M.RAMAKRISHNA REDDY.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI VIVEKANANDA T.P., ADVOCATE)
AND
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,
TH
4 FLOOR, VIKAS SOUDHA,
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU – 560 001.
207
2. STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR,
VIKASA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU - 01.
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
3. THE BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE
N.R.SQUARE, BENGALURU – 560 002
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER.
4. THE JOINT DIRECTOR
TOWN PLANNING (BUILDING LICENSE CELL-NORTH),
BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
N.R.SQUARE, BENGALURU – 560 002.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI R.SRINIVAS GOWDA, AGA FOR R1 AND R2;
SRI SREENIDHI V., AND SMT.SINCHANA M.R.,
ADVOCATES FOR R3 AND R4 (PHYSICAL HEARING))
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH
THE DEMAND NOTICE SIGNED ON 21.05.2020 AT
ANNEXURE-D ISSUED BY THE R-4 IN SO FAR AS THE
DEMAND OF RS.1,80,076/- TOWARDS SCRUTINY FEE,
RS.36,01,523/- TOWARDS LICENSE FEE, RS.21,24,898/-
TOWARDS GROUND RENT AND GST, RS.40,01,692/-
TOWARDS SECURITY DEPOSIT AND ALSO INSOFAR AS
THE CONSTRUCTION WORKERS WELFARE CESS OF
RS.58,82,000/- IS CONCERNED AND ETC.,
IN WRIT PETITION No.8540/2020
BETWEEN
DR.M.RAVINDRA VARMA
AGED 72 YEARS,
S/O LATE M.MUNIVENKATAPPA,
208
RESIDING AT NO.600,
HORAMAVU MAIN ROAD,
HORAMAVU, BENGALURU – 560 043.
REPRESENTED BY GPA HOLDER
M/S SAI CHARITA BUILDERS
A REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.502,
TH
5 FLOOR SAI CHARITA GREEN OAKS- PHASE- I
HORAMAVU MAIN ROAD, HORAMAVU,
BENGALURU – 560 043.
REPRESENTED BY ITS
PARNTER MR. I.LSKHMI REDDY.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI VIVEKANANDA T.P., ADVOCATE)
AND
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,
TH
4 FLOOR, VIKAS SOUDHA,
DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU – 560 001.
2. THE BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANGARA PALIKE
N.R.SQUARE, BENGALURU - 560 002.
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER.
3. THE JOINT DIRECTOR
BUILDING LICENSE CELL (NORTH),
BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
N.R.SQUARE, BENGALURU – 560 002.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI R.SRINIVAS GOWDA, AGA FOR R1;
SRI SREENIDHI V., AND SMT.SINCHANA M.R.,
ADVOCATES FOR R2 AND R3 (PHYSICAL HEARING))
209
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH
THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 06.06.2020 AT ANNEXURE-
E ISSUED BY THE R-3 ONLY IN SO FAR AS THE DEMAND
OF RS.12,08,562/- TOWARDS THE GROUND RENT AND
GST OF RS.2,17,541/- AND RS.51,272/- TOWARDS
SCRUTINY FEE AND ETC.,
IN WRIT PETITION No.8697/2020
BETWEEN
THE TOTAL ENVIRONMENT CONSTRUCTION
PRIVATE LIMITED.,
A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE
COMPANIES ACT, 1956,
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT
“IMAGINE”, NO.78,
ITPL ROAD, EPIP ZONE,
WHITEFIELD, BENGALURU – 560 066
REPRESENTED BY ITS
AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY
MR. SURESH CHANDRA BHANDARI.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI SRIDHAR G., AND SRI R.SHASHIDHAR,
ADVOCATES)
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS SECRETARY,
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,
TH
4 FLOOR, VIKAS SOUDHA,
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU – 560 001.
2. THE BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE
N.R.SQUARE, BENGALURU -560002
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER.
210
3. THE JOINT DIRECTOR
BUILDING LICENCE CELL (NORTH)
THE BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
N.R.SQUARE, BENGALURU – 560 002.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI R.SRINIVAS GOWDA, AGA FOR R1;
SRI SREENIDHI V., AND SMT.SINCHANA M.R.,
ADVOCATES FOR R2 AND R3 (PHYSICAL HEARING))
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 04.07.2020 AT
ANNEXURE - B ISSUED BY THE R- 3 IN SO FAR AS THE
DEMAND FOR SUM OF RS.1,28,50,531-00 TOWARDS
GROUND RENT AND GST AND ETC.,
IN WRIT PETITION No.8831/2020
BETWEEN
1. SRI K.G.RAJAGOPAL REDDY
S/O LATE K.M.GOVINDA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS.
2. SMT. SUNANDAMMA
W/O SRI K.G.RAJAGOPAL REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS.
BOTH ARE RESIDING AT NO.519,
TH TH
20 ‘C’ MAIN, 8 BLOCK,
KORAMANGALA,
BENGALURU – 560 095.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI B.PRAMOD, ADVOCATE)
211
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THE URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,
VIKAS SOUDHA, BENGALURU – 560 001
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THE LABOUR DEPARTMENT
VIKASA SOUDHA,
DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU – 560 001
REPRESENTED BY ITS
UNDER SECRETARY.
3. BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE
N.R. SQUARE, BENGALURU – 560 002
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER.
4. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR
TOWN PLANNING- (SOUTH)
BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
TH TH
BBMP COMPLEX, 9 CROSS, 9 MAIN ROAD,
ND
JAYANAGAR, 2 BLOCK, BENGALURU – 560 011.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI R.SRINIVAS GOWDA, AGA FOR R1 AND R2;
SRI SREENIDHI V., AND SMT.SINCHANA M.R.,
ADVOCATES FOR R3 AND R4 (PHYSICAL HEARING))
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE CIRCULAR DTD. 04.09.2015 ISSUED BY THE
R-3 (ANNX-E) IN SO FAR THE PETITIONERS ARE
CONCERNED; QUASH THE GOVERNMENT ORDER
DTD:18.01.2007 AND THE CORRIGENDUM ORDER DTD.
28.02.2007 ISSUED BY THE R-2 MANDATING UPFRONT
COLLECTION OF LABOUR WELFARE CESS (ANNX-F) IN SO
FAR THE PETITIONERS ARE CONCERNED AND ETC.,
212
IN WRIT PETITION No.8849/2020
BETWEEN
M/S SOBHA LIMITED
(FORMERLY SOBHA DEVELOPERS LIMITED)
A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE
COMPANIES ACT, 1956
REGISTERED AND CORPORATE OFFICE AT
‘SOBHA’, SARJAPUR MARTHAHALLI
OUTER RING ROAD,(ORR)
DEVAABEESANAHALLI, BELLANDUR POST
BENGALURU – 560103.
RERPESENTED BY ITS
AUTHORISED SIGNATORY
MR.PRASAD M.S.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI MADHUKAR DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
TH
4 FLOOR, VIKAS SOUDHA
AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU – 560 001.
2. BRUHAT BANGLAORE MAHANGARA PALIKE
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER
N.R. SQUARE
BENGALURU – 560 002.
3. JOINT DIRECTOR
TOWN PLANNING (NORTH)
BRUHAT BANGLAORE
MAHANAGARA PALIKE
213
N.R.SQUARE
BENGALURU - 560 002.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI R.SRINIVAS GOWDA, AGA FOR R1;
SRI SREENIDHI V., AND SMT.SINCHANA M.R.,
ADVOCATES FOR R2 AND R3 (PHYSICAL HEARING))
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
(A)ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER
APPROPRIATE WRIT OF LIKE NATURE OR DIRECTION,
DECLARING THE BYELAWS NO.3.9 OF THE BANGALORE
MAHANAGARA PALIKE BUILDING BYE- LAWS 2003
(ANNEXURE- A) AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL, ILLEGAL AND
ULTRA VIRES AND ETC.,
IN WRIT PETITION No.8984/2020
BETWEEN
TRANQUIL REALTY PRIVATE LIMITED
BEING A COMPANY INCORPORATED
UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956,
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT
NO.30, VASWANI VICTORIA,
VICTORIA ROAD,
BENGALURU – 560 047
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR
MR ARUN A ADVANI.
... PETITIONER
(BY MS.NAYANTARA, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI G.L.VISHWANATH, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
214
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,
TH
4 FLOOR, VIKAS SOUDHA,
AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU – 560 001.
2. BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER,
N R SQUARE,
BENGALURU – 560 002.
3. JOINT DIRECTOR (TOWN PLANNING- NORTH)
BRUHATH BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
N R SQUARE,
BENGALURU – 560 002.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI R.SRINIVAS GOWDA, AGA FOR R1;
SRI SREENIDHI V., AND SMT.SINCHANA M.R.,
ADVOCATES FOR R2 AND R3 (PHYSICAL HEARING))
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH
THE ENDORSEMENT DTD:23.6.2020 ISSUED BY THE R-3
AT ANNEXURE-P INSOFAR AS IT SEEKS TO RECOVER
RS.36,46,160 TOWARDS GROUND RENT AND GST AT THE
RATE OF 18 PERCENT AND ETC.,
IN WRIT PETITION No.8993/2020
BETWEEN
1. M. THIYAGARAJAN
AGED 62 YEARS,
S/O LATE T. MURUGAVEL,
NO.519, SY. NO.24/2,
MAHADEVAPURA VILLAGE,
K.R.PURAM HOBLI,
WARD NO.81,
215
MAHADEVAPURA ZONE,
BENGALURU – 560 048.
2. OMAR FAROOK
S/O A. SHAKOOR,
AGED 56 YEARS,
NO.519, SY. NO.24/2,
MAHADEVAPURA VILLAGE,
K.R.PURAM HOBLI,
WARD NO.81,
MAHADEVAPURA ZONE,
BENGALURU – 560 048.
REPRESENTED BY THEIR GPA
M/S SAI PRAGATHI ESTATES AND
CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD.,
REGISTERED OFFICE AT
TH
FLAT NO.501, 5 FLOOR,
PLOT NO.3-6-517, SAO DATTA ARCADE,
HIMAYAT NAGAR,
HYDERABAD – 500 029.
REPRESENTED BY ITS
MANAGING DIRECTOR
SRI K.PRATAP REDDY.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI T P VIVEKANANDA, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,
TH
4 FLOOR, VIKAS SOUDHA,
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU – 560 001.
216
2. THE BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE
N.R SQUARE, BENGALURU – 560 002
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER.
3. THE JOINT DIRECTOR
(BUILDING LICENSE CELL-NORTH),
BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
N.R. SQUARE, BENGALURU – 560 002.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI R.SRINIVAS GOWDA, AGA FOR R1;
SRI SREENIDHI V., AND SMT.SINCHANA M.R.,
ADVOCATES FOR R2 AND R3 (PHYSICAL HEARING))
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH
THE DEMAND NOTICE DTD.18.5.2020 AT ANNEXURE-E
ISSUED BY THE R-3 ONLY IN SO FAR AS THE DEMAND OF
RS.20,60,543/- TOWARDS THE GROUND RENT AND GST
OF RS.3,70,898/- AND RS.68,685/- TOWARDS SCRUTINY
FEE RS.13,73,695/- TOWARDS LICENSE FEE ARE
CONCERNED AND ETC.,
IN WRIT PETITION No.9421/2020
BETWEEN
1. M/S. PARIWAR HOUSING CORPORATION
A PARTNERSHIP FIRM
TH
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.167, 36 CROSS,
TH TH
18 MAIN, 4 ‘T’ BLOCK JAYANAGAR,
BENGALURU – 560 041.
REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER
SRI A.KIRAN KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
S/O LATE ANAND.
217
2. M/S WISE BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS
A PARTNERSHIP FIRM
TH
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.169, 6 MAIN,
TH
JAYANAGAR 4 BLOCK, BENGALURU – 560 011.
REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER
SRI C.VENKATESH
S/O LATE CHENGAMA NAIDU,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI B.PRAMOD, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THE URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
VIKASA SOUDHA, DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU – 560 001
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THE LABOUR DEPARTMENT,
VIKASA SOUDHA, DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU – 560 001
REPRESENTED BY ITS UNDER SECRETARY.
3. BRUHATH BANGALORE MAHANAGAR PALIKE
N.R.SQUARE, BENGALURU – 560 002
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER.
4. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR
(TOWN PLANNING)
MAHADEVAPURA DIVISION,
BRUHATH BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
WHITEFIELD MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 048.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI R.SRINIVAS GOWDA, AGA FOR R1 & R2;
SRI SREENIDHI V., AND SMT.SINCHANA M.R.,
218
ADVOCATES FOR R3 AND R4 (PHYSICAL HEARING))
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE CIRCULAR DATED 04.09.2015 ISSUED BY
THE R-3 (ANNEXURE – E) IN SO FAR THE PETITIONERS
ARE CONCERNED AND ETC.,
IN WRIT PETITION No.11152/2020
BETWEEN
1. M/S PARAKITE BUILDERS PVT. LTD.,
A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY HAVING ITS
REGISTERED OFFICE AT
M/S. GPR TOWERS, NO.6,
PARK ROAD, TASKER TOWN,
BENGALURU – 560 051.
REPRESENTED BY ITS
DIRECTOR AND AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY
SRI AVINASH AGARWALL.
2. SRI M. NARAYANA
S/O LATE MUNI VENKATAPPA
AGED ABOUT 81 YEARS,
(SENIOR CITIZEN BENEFIT NOT CLAIMED)
RESIDING AT GRAPE GARDEN,
OPP. CHANDRAMMA CHOULTRY,
SEVANAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 033.
3. SRI M.SUBBANNA
S/O LATE MUNI VENKATAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS,
(SENIOR CITIZEN BENEFIT NOT CLAIMED)
RESIDING AT GRAPE GARDEN,
OPP. CHANDRAMMA CHOULTRY,
SEVANAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 033.
219
PETITIONER NOS.2 & 3 ARE REPRESENTED BY
THEIR POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER,
PETITIONER NO.1 REPRESENTED BY ITS
AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY
MR. AVINASH AGARWALL.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI SAMMITH S., ADVOCATE )
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS
ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY,
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,
VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU – 560 001.
2. THE UNDER SECRETARY
MINISTRY OF LABOUR,
VIKASA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU – 560 001.
3. THE COMMISSIONER
BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
N.R.SQUARE, BENGALURU – 560 002.
4. THE JOINT DIRECTOR (BUILDING LICENSE
CELL-NORTH)
BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE
N.R.SQUARE, BENGALURU – 560 002.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI R. SRINIVAS GOWDA, AGA FOR R1 AND R2
(PHYSICAL HEARING);
SRI SREENIDHI V. AND SMT.SINCHANA M.R.,
ADVOCATES FOR R3 AND R4 (PHYSICAL HEARING))
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE GOVERNMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE R-2
220
DATED 18.01.2007 AND THE CORRIGENDUM THEREIN
DATED 28.02.2007 MANDATING UPFRONT COLLECTION
OF LABOUR WELFARE CESS, AS CONTAINED IN
ANNEXURE-C AND ETC.,
IN WRIT PETITION No.11163/2020
BETWEEN
SRI SATHYA SAI HEALTH AND EDUCATION TRUST
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.303,
TARA APARTMENT,
NO.132, INFANTRY ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
REPRSENTED BY ITS POWER
OF ATTORNEY HOLDER,
M/S VISHNU PRIYA GROUP OF BUILDERS
AND DEVELOPERS A PARTNERSHIP
FIRM HAVING ITS REGISTRED OFFICE
AT NO.1-7-331, CHAITANYAPURI,
DILSUKHNAGAR, HYDERABAD – 500 060
REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER AND
AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY
SRI.M.ANIL KUMAR.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI SAMMITH S., ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS
ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY,
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU – 560 001.
221
2. THE UNDER SECRETARY
MINISTRY OF LABOUR,
VIKASAS SOUDHA,
BENGALURU – 560 001.
3. THE COMMISSIONER
BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
N.R.SQUARE, BENGALURU – 560 002.
4. THE JOINT DIRECTOR (BUILDING LICENSE
CELL - NORTH)
BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
N.R.SQUARE, BENGALRU – 560 002.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI R. SRINIVAS GOWDA, AGA, ADVOCATE FOR R1
AND R2 (PHYSICAL HEARING);
SRI SREENIDHI V AND SMT.SINCHANA M.R.,
ADVOCATES FOR R3 AND R4 (PHYSICAL HEARING))
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE GOVERNMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE R-2
DTD.18.1.2007 AND THE CORRIGENDUM THEREON
DTD.28.2.2007 MANDATING UPFRONT COLLECTION OF
LABOUR WELFARE CESS, AS CONTAINED IN ANNEXURE-C
AND ETC.,
IN WRIT PETITION No.11307/2020
BETWEEN
1. G. V. NAGARAJA REDDY
S/O G. T. VENKATASWAMY REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS.
2. G. V. SATISH REDDY
S/O G. T. VENKATASWAMY REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS.
222
PETITIONER NOS.1 AND 2 ARE
RESIDING AT GUNJUR
VILLAGE AND POST,
BENGALURU EAST TALUK,
BENGALURU – 560 085.
PETITIONER NOS.1 AND 2 ARE
REPRESENTED BY THEIR
POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER,
M/S. ND DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,
A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY HAVING ITS
ND
REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.398, 2 FLOOR,
TH
7 CROSS, MICO LAYOUT,
ND
B.T.M. 2 STAGE,
BENGALURU – 560 076.
REP. BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY
SRI AVINASH AGARWALL.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI SAMMITH S., ADVOCATE )
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS
ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY,
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU – 560 001.
2. THE COMMISSIONER
BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
N.R.SQUARE, BENGALURU – 560 002.
3. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR
TOWN PLANNING,
MAHADEVAPURA WARD,
223
BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE,
BENGALURU – 560 048.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI R.SRINIVAS GOWDA, AGA FOR R1 AND R2
(PHYSICAL HEARING)
SRI SREENIDHI V AND SMT.SINCHANA M.R.,
ADVOCATES FOR R3 AND R4 (PHYSICAL HEARING))
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE CIRCULAR ISSUED BY THE R-2
COMMISSIONER DATED 4.9.2015 LEVYING FEES FOR
ISSUE OF OCCUPANCY CERTIFICATE AS CONTAINED IN
ANNEXURE-G AND ETC.,
IN WRIT PETITION No.12570/2020
BETWEEN
1. SRI.Y. MUNIRAJAPPA
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS
S/O LATE SRI DODDA YAMANNA
2. SMT. NARAYANAMMA
W/O SRI Y MUNIRAJAPPA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS.
3. SMT.C.JAMUNA
W/O SRI Y MUNIRAJPPA
AGED 45 YEARS
4. SRI M.MAHESH
S/O MR. MUNIRAJAPPA
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS.
5. SRI M YATHISH
S/O M Y MUNIRAJAPPA
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS.
224
6. SMT.KAMALAMMA
W/O LATE SRI Y.VENKATASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS.
7. SRI V.NAGESH
S/O LATE SRI Y VENKATASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS.
8. SMT.GAYATHRAMMA
D/O LATE SRI Y.VENKATASWAMY
AGE ABOUT 48 YEARS
9. SRI HEMAVATHI V.,
D/O LATE SRI Y.VENKATASWAMY Y
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS.
10. SRI V.ASHOK
S/O LATE SRI Y.VENKATASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS.
11. SRI Y.MUNIYALLAPPA
S/O LATE SRI DODDA YAMANNA
AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS
12. SMT.AMMAYAMMA
W/O SRI Y.MUNIYALLAPA
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS.
13. SRI M.SOMANATH
S/OLATE SRI DODDA YAMANNA
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS.
14. SRI M.CHANDRASHEKAR
S/O MR.Y.MUNIYALLAPPA
AGED 41 YEARS.
15. SRI SRINIVAS
S/O MR Y.MUNIYALLAPPA
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS.
225
16. SMT.RENUKA
D/O MR Y.MUNIYALLAPPA
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
17. SRI HARISH
S/O MR Y.MUNIYALLAPPA
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS.
18. SMT.SARASWATHAMMA
D/O LATE SRI DODDA YAMANNA
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS.
19. SMT GOWRAMMA
D/O LATE SRI RATHNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS.
20. SMT.ANJINAMMA
D/O LATE SRI RATHNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS.
21. SMT.SAROJAMMA
D/O LATE SRI RATHNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS.
22. SRI R.NARAYANASWAMY
S/O LATE SRI RATHNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS.
23. SMT KALPANA
D/O LATE SRI R NARAYANAWAMY
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS.
24. SMT.PRATHIBA
S/O SRI R.NARAYANASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS.
25. SRI N.AVINASH
S/O SRI NARAYANASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS.
226
26. SRI R.VENUGOPAL
S/O LATE SRI RATHNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS.
27. SMT.MANJULA
W/O SRI R.VENUGOPAL
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS.
28. SMT.SOWMYA
D/O SRI R.VENUGOPAL
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS.
29. SRI ARUN KUMAR
S/O SRI R.VENUGOPAL
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS.
30. SMT.VENKATAMMA
W/O LATE SRI SHAMANNA
AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS.
31. SRI S.MANJUNATH
S/O LATE SRI SHAMANNA
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
PETITIONERS NO.1 TO 31 ARE
RESIDING AT HORAMAVU VILLAGE
K.R.PURAM HOBLI,
BENGALURU EAST TALUK
BENGALURU.
32. SMT.AMMAYAMMA
W/O LATE SRI RAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS
33. SMT. R. BHAGYALAKSHMI
D/O LATE SRI RAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS.
227
34. SMT R.MANJULA
D/O LATE SRI RAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
35. SMT.R.GIRIJA
D/O LATE SRI RAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS.
36. SRI M.KRISHNAPPA
S/O LATE SRI MUNISWAMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 83 YEARS.
37. SMT. SUSHEELAMMA
W/O SRI M KRISHNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS.
38. SRI K.SRINIVASA MURTHY
S/O SRI M.KRISHNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS.
39. SMT.K.KANAKA
D/O SRI M.KRISHNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS.
40. SRI K.RAVI
S/O SRI M KRISHNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
41. SRI M.SRIRAMAIAH
S/O LATE SRI MUNISWAMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS
42. SMT. NANJAMMA
W/O SRI M SRIRAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS.
43. SMT.S.RADHA
D/O SRI M.SRIRAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS.
228
44. SMT S INDIRA
D/O SRI M SRIRAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS.
45. SRI S SATISH
S/O SRI M SRIRAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS.
PETITIONER NO.32 TO NO.35 ARE
RESIDING AT NO 297,
HORAMAVU VILLAGE AND POST
BENGALURU – 560 043.
PETITIONERS NO.41 TO 45 ARE
ND
RESIDING AT NO.1, 2 MAIN,
HORAMAVU VILLAGE AND POST,
BENGALURU - 560 043.
REPRESENTED BY IT’S
POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER
M/S A.S.N DEVELOPERS
A PARTNERSHIP FIRM
HAVING ITS REGISTERED
OFFICE AT NO 39,
HORAMAVU VILLAGE
K R PURAM HOBLI,
BENGALURU EAST TALUK
BENGALURU – 560 016.
REPRESENTED BY ITS
MANAGING PARTNER
SRI P.BALASUBRAMANYAM
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI SAMMITH S., ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
229
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BENGALURU – 560001.
2 . THE UNDER SECRETARY
MINISTRY OF LABOUR
VIKASA SOUDHA
BENGALURU – 560 001.
3. BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE
REPRESENTED BY
THE COMMISSIONER
N.R.SQUARE, BENGALURU – 560 002.
4. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR
TOWN PLANNING (ADTP),
BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE
TOWN PLANNING (MAHADEVAPURA),
RHB COLONY WHITEFIELD MAIN ROAD
BENGALURU – 560 048.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI R.SRINIVAS GOWDA, AGA FOR R1 AND R2
(PHYSICAL HEARING);
SRI SREENIDHI V & SMT.SINCHANA M.R.,
ADVOCATES FOR R3 & R4 (PHYSICAL HEARING))
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE GOVERNMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE R- 2
DATED 18.01.2007 AND THE CORRIGENDUM THEREIN
DATED 28.02.2007 MANDATING UPFRONT COLLECTION
OF LABOUR WELFARE CESS, AS CONTAINED IN
ANNEXURE – C AND ETC.,
IN WRIT PETITION No.12576/2020
BETWEEN
H. T. MOHANDAS
230
S/O H.C.THAMMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.52
RD
3 CROSS, SATYANARAYANA LAYOUT
RD
WEST OF CHORD ROAD, 3 STAGE,
TH
4 BLOCK, BASAVESHWARANAGAR
BENGALURU – 560 079.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI SAMMITH S., ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS
ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY,
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU – 560 001.
2. THE UNDERSECRETARY
MINISTRY OF LABOUR
VIKASA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU – 560 001.
3. BRUHAT BENGALURU
MAHANAGARA PALIKE
REPRESENTED BY ITS
COMMISSIONER,
N R SQUARE,
BENGALURU – 560 002.
4. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR
TOWN PLANNING
(RAJARAJESHWARINAGARA)
BRUHAT BENGALURU
MAHANAGARA PALIKE
TH
18 CROSS IDEAL HOME LAYOUT,
RR NAGAR, NEAR BESCOM OFFICE,
BENGALURU – 560 098.
... RESPONDENTS
231
(BY SRI R.SRINIVAS GOWDA, AGA FOR R1 & R2
(PHYSICAL HEARING);
SRI SREENIDHI V & SMT.SINCHANA M.R., ADVOCATES
FOR R3 & R4 (PHYSICAL HEARING))
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE GOVERNMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE R-2
DATED 18.01.2007 AND THE CORRIGENDUM THEREIN
DATED 28.02.2007 MANDATING UPFRONT COLLECTION
OF LABOUR WELFARE CESS, AS CONTAINED IN
ANNEXURE-C AND ETC.,
WRIT PETITION No.13116/2020
BETWEEN
M/S BHARTIYA URBAN PVT LTD
(FORMERLY M/S BHARTIYA CITY DEVELOPERS PVT LTD)
A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY HAVING ITS REGISTERED
OFFICE AT:
56/7, NALLAMBAKKAM VILLAGE
VIA VANDALUR
CHENNAI-600048
AND ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE AT
NO.1/5, PALACE ROAD
BENGALURU-560001
REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY
MR SHAMA SUNDER R J ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI SAMMITH S., ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS
ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
232
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BENGALURU – 560 001.
2. THE COMMISSIONER
BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE
N.R.SQUARE,
BENGALURU – 560 002.
3. THE JOINT DIRECTOR (TOWN PLANNING-NORTH)
BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE
N.R.SQUARE,
BENGALURU – 560 002.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI R. SRINIVAS GOWDA, AGA FOR R-1,
SRI SREENIDHI V. AND SMT.SINCHANA M.R.,
ADVOCATES FOR R2 AND R3
(PHYSICAL HEARING))
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH
THE CIRCULAR ISSUED BY THE R-2 COMMISSIONER
DATED 4.9.2015 LEVYING FEES FOR ISSUE OF
OCCUPANCY CERTIFICATE, AS CONTAINED IN ANNEXURE
- G AND ETC.,
*
THESE WRIT PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD
AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 03.02.2021,
COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING :-
233
ORDER
Conglomeration of these petitions raise a challenge
to several imposts/fee imposed by the Bruhath
1
Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike and the State of
Karnataka upon the residents and developers/builders
of the city of Bengaluru, all of which come under the
precincts of the BBMP.
2. Since these petitions run into several numbers,
I deem it appropriate to use the pleadings in
W.P.No.36017/2018, W.P.No.4601/2020 and
W.P.No.8849/2020, which are the leading petitions for
noticing the facts, as all of the actions are challenged in
these petitions. All the other petitions raise a common
challenge.
1
‘the BBMP’ for short
234
FACTUAL SCORE :
W.P.No.36017 of 2018:-
3. The subject petition is filed by M/s Vaswani
2
Estates Developers Private Limited , a developer. The
Company claims to be a Private Limited Company
registered under the Companies Act, 1956 which is in
the business of construction/development of several
residential and commercial projects in and around the
City of Bangalore. It is the claim of the Company that in
order to develop certain lands in the property bearing
Municipal Nos.1 and 1/1 Madras Tank Road/St.Marks
Road with PID No.76-20-35 owned by one Sri P.H.
Krishna Reddy, the Land Owner, the Company and the
Land Owner entered into a joint development agreement
on 11-02-2005 in respect of the aforesaid property to
construct a commercial building and registered the
same at the jurisdictional sub-registrar. It also
transpires that several supplemental joint agreements
2
‘ the Company ’ for short
235
took place between the Company and the Land Owner
which is not the concern or the issue in this petition.
4. The Company intending to construct a
commercial building on the property and several
agreements having been entered into between the
parties, the Company had to and did obtain ‘no
objections’ from concerned departments in respect of
construction to be undertaken on the property. All no
objection certificates obtained from several statutory
authorities are also annexed to the petition.
5. As stated above, the Company intending to
construct a commercial building on the property
th
(3B+G+9UF) made an application on 20 March, 2018
along with requisite documents prescribed in law to the
BBMP and the Town Planning Department of the BBMP.
The Company also remitted requisite fee of Rs.68,534/-
along with the application.
236
6. The BBMP approved and granted building
licence as also a sanctioned plan to the Company on
rd
04-07-2018. The 3 respondent/Department of Town
Planning of the BBMP issued an endorsement
demanding Rs.1,86,86,000/- from the Company under
various heads set out in the endorsement and an
additional amount of labour cess of Rs.17,16,200/- for
the purpose of grant of building licence and sanction of
plan. The impugned demands made read as follows:
“±ÀÄ®Ì ¥ÁªÀw w¼ÀĪÀ½PÉ ¥ÀvÀæ
*
ªÉÄîÌAqÀ «µÀAiÀÄPÉÌ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ, D¹Û SÁvÁ ¸ÀASÉå;36,
¦.L.r ¸ÀASÉå. 70-20-36, ¸ÉÃAmï ªÀiÁPïìð gÀ¸ÉÛ, ªÁqïð £ÀA.111,
±ÁAw£ÀUÀgÀ, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ E°è ¤«Äð¸À®Ä GzÉÝò¹gÀĪÀ ªÁtÂdå
PÀlÖqÀPÉÌ £ÀPÉë ªÀÄAdÆgÁw PÉÆÃjgÀĪÀ ¥Àæ¸ÁÛªÀ£ÉUÉ ªÀiÁ£Àå DAiÀÄÄPÀÛgÀªÀgÀÄ
G¯ÉèÃR (1) gÀ°è C£ÀĪÉÆÃzÀ£É ¤ÃrgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. ªÀiÁ£Àå DAiÀÄÄPÀÛgÀÄ
gÀªÀgÀÄ G¯ÉèÃR (2) gÀ ¸ÀÄvÉÆÛïÉAiÀÄAvÉ £É®¨ÁrUÉ ±ÀÄ®ÌPÉÌ ¸ÀgÀPÀÄ
ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸ÉêÁ vÉjUÉ ¥ÁªÀw¹PÉƼÀÄîªÀ §UÉÎ D£ï¯ÉÊ£ï vÀAvÁæA±ÀzÀ°è
GvÀàwÛAiÀiÁUÀĪÀ gÀ¹Ã¢AiÀÄ°è C¼ÀªÀr¸À¯ÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. EzÀgÀAvÉ
¹.f.J¸ï.n ±ÉÃ.9 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ J¸ï.f.J¸ï.n ±ÉÃ.9 gÀµÀÖ£ÀÄß £É®¨ÁrUÉ
±ÀÄ®ÌzÀ ªÉÆvÀÛPÉÌ MlÄÖ ±ÉÃ.18 gÀµÀÄà f.J¸ï.n
¥ÁªÀw¹PÉƼÀî¨ÉÃPÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. CzÀgÀAvÉ £ÀPÉë ªÀÄAdÆgÁw ¸ÀA§AzsÀ
237
¯ÉʸɣïìÀì ¦üÃ, EvÀgÉà ±ÀÄ®ÌUÀ¼À ¨Á§ÄÛ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ f.J¸ï.n. ¸ÉÃjzÀAvÉ
¥ÁªÀw¸À¨ÉÃPÁzÀ ªÉÆvÀÛªÀ£ÀÄß PɼÀPÀAqÀAvÉ «ªÀj¸À¯ÁVzÉ.
¥Á°PÉUÉ ¥ÁªÀw¸À¨ÉÃPÁzÀ ±ÀÄ®Ì
PÀæªÀÄ
¸ÀASÉå ±ÀÄ®ÌUÀ¼À «ªÀgÀ ±ÀÄ®Ì gÀÆ.
1 £É® ¨ÁrUÉ 67,61,057-00
–
fJ¸ïn 18% (£É® ¨ÁrUÉ ªÉÆvÀÛPÉÌ) 12,16,990 00
2 GvÀÛªÀÄvÉ ±ÀÄ®Ì: 1. PÀlÖqPÁÌV 1,22,129-00
2. ¤ªÉñÀ£ÀPÁÌV 2,12,486-00
3 ¨sÀzÀævÁ oÉêÀt 12,21,291-00
4 ¯Éʸɣïì ±ÀÄ®Ì 89,66,697-00
5 £ÀPÉë ¥ÀæwUÀ¼À ±ÀÄ®Ì ªÀÄvÀÄÛ
DªÀgÀtUÉÆÃqÉ ±ÀÄ®Ì 96,000-00
6 ±Éà 1 gÀµÀÄÖ PÁ«ÄðPÀ PÀ¯Áåt
¤¢ü¬ÄAzÀ ¥Á°PÉUÉ ¸ÀAzÁAiÀĪÁUÀ¨ÉÃPÁzÀ
¸ÉêÁ ±ÀÄ®Ì 17,779-00
7 PÉgÉ ¥ÀÄ£ÀgÀÄfÓêÀ£À ±ÀÄ®Ì 70,829-00
MlÄÖ 1,86,85,258-00
Say Rs.
1,86,86,000-00
It is these two endorsements and the fee that is levied
under various heads in terms of aforementioned
endorsement that are the subject matter of challenge in
238
this petition. This petition concerns challenge to
(i) ground rent, (ii) licence fee, (iii) lake rejuvenation
fee and (iv) scrutiny fee .
W.P.No. 4601 of 2020:-
7. The petitioners in this writ petition are
Mr. Sunderam Shetty and others. The contention of the
petitioners in this petition is akin to what is contended
in the aforesaid writ petition. Here again, when
documents were submitted to the BBMP, after arriving
at a joint development agreement for sanction of plan
and grant of building licence for construction of a
residential apartment complex, the BBMP made the
grant of such permission/licence subject to payment of
ground rent and several other demands which run into
several crores on various heads. The challenge in this
petition is to the following action of levying fee/tax. The
prayer of the petitioners reads as follows:-
239
“(i) Issue a writ of certiorari or similar writ
or order or direction to quash the
demand notice No.BBMP/Addl.Dir/JD
North/LP/0048/2014-15 dated
18-02-2020 at Annexure-G issued by
the respondent No.3 only in so far as
the demand of Rs.77,73,818/- towards
ground rent and GST at 18% on the
ground rent at Rs.13,99,287/- and
scrutiny fee of Rs.5,18,255/-.
(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, 2003 as unconstitutional,
arbitrary, illegal and ultra vires.
(iii) Issue a writ of mandamus or similar
writ or order or direction directing
respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to issue
occupancy certificate pursuant to the
demand notice No. BBMP/Addl.Dir/JD
North/LP/0448/2014-15 dated
18-02-2020 at Annexure-G without
insisting for payment of Rs.77,73,818/-
240
towards ground rent and GST at 18% on
the ground rent at Rs.13,99,287/- and
scrutiny fee of Rs.5,18,255/-.
(iv) 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.”
W.P.No. 8849 of 2020:-
8. In this writ petition, apart from what is
challenged by the petitioners in the writ petitions noted
hereinabove, the petitioner is seeking to raise a
challenge to the demand of Labour Cess imposed by
Government of Karnataka under the Building and Other
3
Construction Workers’ Welfare Cess Act, 1996 to be
paid to the Welfare Board. The impugned demands
made are as follows:
“±ÀÄ®Ì ¥ÁªÀw w¼ÀĪÀ½PÉ
ªÉÄîÌAqÀ «µÀAiÀÄPÉÌ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ (¸ÀªÉð £ÀA.589),
Nagondanahalli & Hagadur village, K R Puram
3
‘Welfare Cess Act’ for short
241
Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk, Ward-084
ªÀ®AiÀÄ,
¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ JDTP- North E°è ¤«Äð¸À®Ä GzÉÝò¹gÀĪÀ
Residential - Apartment New
G¥ÀAiÉÆÃUÀzÀPÀlÖqÀPÉÌ
(FRESH PLAN SANCTION)
PÉÆÃjgÀĪÀ ¥Àæ¸ÁÛªÀ£ÉUÉ
Commissioner June, 2020
gÀªÀgÀÄ ¢£ÁAPÀ:10 C£ÀĪÉÆÃzÀ£É
New (FRESH PLAN SANCTION)
¤Ãr. ¸ÀA§AzsÀ ¯Éʸɣïì
¦üà ªÀÄvÀÄÛ EvÀgÉà ±ÀÄ®ÌUÀ¼À ¨Á§ÄÛ ¥ÁªÀw¸À¨ÉÃPÁzÀ ±ÀÄ®ÌUÀ¼À «ªÀgÀUÀ¼ÀÄ
F PɼÀPÀAqÀAvÉ «ªÀj¸À¯ÁVzÉ.
| I. ¥Á°PÉUÉ ¥ÁªÀw¸À¨ÉÃPÁzÀ ±ÀÄ®Ì | ||
| PæÀªÀÄ<br>¸ÀASÉå | ±ÀÄ®ÌUÀ¼À «ªÀgÀ | ±ÀÄ®Ì gÀÆ. |
| 1 | ¥Àj²Ã®£Á ±ÀÄ®Ì | 7,85,384.28 |
| 2 | ¥ÀgÀªÁ£ÀV ±ÀÄ®Ì | 1,57,07,685.60 |
| 3 | £É® ¨ÁrUÉ - fJ¸ïn<br>18% (£É® ¨ÁrUÉ<br>ªÉÆvÀÛPÉÌ) | 92,67,534.50 |
| 4 | PÉn¹¦ PÁAiÉÄÝ - 1961<br>PÀ®A 18 gÀAvÉ ±ÀÄ®Ì<br>(GvÀÛªÀÄvÉ ±ÀÄ®Ì):<br>PÀlÖqÀPÁÌV | 3,49,060.00 |
| 5 | PÉn¹¦ PÁAiÉÄÝ - 1961<br>PÀ®A 18 gÀAvÉ ±ÀÄ®Ì<br>(GvÀÛªÀÄvÉ ±ÀÄ®Ì):<br>¤ªÉñÀ£ÀPÁÌV | 00.00 |
| 6 | ¨sÀzæÀvÁ oÉêÀt | 1,74,52,984.00 |
| 7 | PÉgÉ ¥ÀÄ£ÀgÀÄfÓêÀ£À ±ÀÄ®Ì | 00.00 |
| 8 | DªÀgÀtUÉÆÃqÉ ±ÀÄ®Ì | 2,15,000.00 |
| 9 | gÀ¸ÉÛ CUÉvÀ ±ÀÄ®Ì | NA |
| 10 | ±Éà 1 gÀµÀÄÖPÁ«ÄðPÀ | 2,17,047.00 |
242
| PÀ¯Áåt ¤¢ü¬ÄAzÀ<br>¥Á°PÉUÉ<br>¸ÀAzÁAiÀĪÁUÀ¨ÉÃPÁzÀ<br>¸ÉêÁ ±ÀÄ®Ì | ||
|---|---|---|
| MlÄÖ ±ÀÄ®Ì | 4,32,04,000.00 |
£ÀPÉë ªÀÄAdÆgÁw / ¥ÀgÀªÁ£ÀV ¸ÀA§AzsÀ ±ÀÄ®ÌzÀ ¨Á§ÄÛ
Rupees Four Crore Thirty
gÀÆ.4,32,04,000.00/- (gÀÆ.
Two Lacs Four Thousand Only) Debit Card /
Credit Card / Net Banking
ªÀÄÄSÁAvÀgÀ
Commissioner, BBMP
UÉ ¥ÁªÀw¸ÀĪÀÅzÀÄ.
| II. PÀlÖqÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ EvÀgÉà ¤ªÀiÁðt PÁ«ÄðPÀgÀÄ PÀ¯Áåt ªÀÄAqÀ½UÉ<br>¥ÁªÀw¸À¨ÉÃPÁzÀ ¸É¸ï ªÉÆvÀÛ | ||
|---|---|---|
| PæÀªÀÄ<br>¸ÀASÉå | ±ÀÄ®ÌUÀ¼À «ªÀgÀ | ±ÀÄ®Ì gÀÆ. |
| PÁ«ÄðPÀ PÀ¯Áåt ¤¢üUÉ<br>¥ÁªÀw¸À¨ÉÃPÁzÀ PÀgÀzÀ ªÉÆvÀÛ | 2,14,88,000.00 | |
| 2,14,88,000.00 |
Identical demands are made in all these cases.
9. According to the petitioners, they are legally
liable to be pay only betterment fee, compound wall fee
and no other levy that is sought to be imposed upon
them. Insofar as it concerns this writ petition, it is the
243
case of the petitioners that Government of Karnataka
issued corrigendum on 08-01-2007 and 28-02-2007
prescribing the procedure for levy of labour cess.
Clause (c) of the Government order dealt with labour
cess in respect of construction work which is approved
by any legal authority. The demand notice issued by
rd
the 3 respondent/Town Planning Department of the
BBMP charge one percent labour cess in a manner that
is not sanctioned by law. The learned counsel would
contend that petitioners are not liable to pay upfront,
labour cess and service charge on labour cess. The
rd
demand made by the 3 respondent is contrary to the
Act and the rules as the Rules do not contemplate
payment of upfront labour cess. Therefore, broadly, the
contention of the petitioners in the aforesaid writ
petitions is that the fee that is levied upon them is
without authority of law, without application of mind
and contrary to the Act and the Rules and the Byelaws
244
that empower imposition of fee upon the petitioners and
the like.
10. Heard Ms. Nayantara, learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner in Writ Petition No.
36017/2018, Sri. T.P.Vivekananda, learned counsel
appearing for petitioners in Writ Petition No.4601/2020,
Sri. Madhukar Deshpande, learned counsel appearing
for petitioner in Writ Petition No.8849/2020,
Sri.Sammith.S., learned counsel appearing for
petitioners in Writ Petition No.12570/2020 and
Sri C.K.Nanda Kumar, learned counsel appearing for
petitioner in Writ Petition No.24906/2019.
10.1. Heard Sri K.G.Raghavan, learned senior
counsel appearing petitioner in Writ Petition
No.13495/2019, Sri G. Krishnamurthy, learned senior
counsel appearing for petitioners in Writ Petition
No.57893/2018, Sri Jayakumar S.Patil, learned senior
245
counsel appearing for petitioner in Writ Petition
No.16461/2017 and Sri V.Sreenidhi, learned counsel
along with Smt. Sinchana.M.R, learned counsel
appearing for BBMP.
SUBMISSIONS :
PETITIONERS :
11. Ms. Nayanatara, learned counsel representing
the petitioner in Writ Petition No.36017/2018,
spearheading the arguments in all cases, would raise
the following contentions:
(i) Levy of fee that is challenged is in blatant violation
of the power to do so by the BBMP.
(ii) Characterization of impugned levy is without
authority of law.
(iii) It is neither a fee nor a tax as there is no co-
relation between what is charged and quid pro quo
(iv) The impugned levy is violative of Article 19(1)(g) of
the Constitution of India.
246
(v) All the levies are without authority of law as
neither the Statute nor the Bye-laws empower the
BBMP.
(vi) Imposition of lake rejuvenation fee invoking
Section 18(1)(A) of the Karnataka Town and
Country Planning Act is also impermissible as it is
imposed by way of a Circular dated 27.01.2017.
(vii) Licence fee and scrutiny are imposed invoking the
power under the bye-law and bye-laws have no
force of law unless the Act empowers such
imposition.
(viii) The petitioner in this petition is entitled for refund
of the entire amount deposited without prejudice.
The learned counsel Ms.Nayantara would place
reliance upon the following judgments:
a) Hutchison Essar South Limited V. Corporation of
The City of Belgaum
ILR 2011 Karnataka 2631
247
b) Wireless - TT Info Services Ltd. and Others V.
State of Karnataka and Others
2012 (3) KarLJ 302
c) Calcutta Municipal Corporation and Others
V. Shrey Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. and others
(2005) 4 SCC 245
d) The Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments,
Madras V. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of
Sri Shirur Mutt
AIR 1954 SC 282
e) The Corporation of Calcutta and another V.
Liberty Cinema
AIR (1965) SC 1107
f) Delhi Race Club Ltd. V. Union of India and Others
(2012) 8 SCC 680
g) Nagar Mahapalika Varnasi V. Durga Das
Battacharya
AIR 1968 SC 1119
h) Jindal Stainless Ltd., and another V. State of
Haryana
(2017) 12 SCC 1
i) State of Kerala and Others V. PJ Joseph
AIR 1958 SC 296
j) Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority V.
Sharad Kumar Jayantikumar Pasawalla and
Others
AIR 1992 SC 2038
248
k) Nagrik Upabhokta M. Manch V. Union of India
and Others
AIR 2002 SC 2405
l) M/S Govind Saran Ganga Saran V.
Commissioner of Sales Tax and others
AIR 1985 SC 1041
m) Corporation of Calcutta and Another V. Liberty
Cinema
AIR 1965 SC 1107
n) Pandit Banarsi Das Bhanot V. The State of
Madhya Pradesh and Others
AIR 1958 SC 909
o) Salonah Tea Company Ltd., V. Superintendent of
Texes Nowgong and Others.
AIR 1990 SC 772
12. Sri T.P.Vivekananda, learned counsel would
also submit on similar lines with regard to the power of
the BBMP to impose impugned levies and would further
contend that the State Government is not empowered to
impose Labour Cess on the petitioners in the case as
even the said imposition/demand is without authority of
law. The learned counsel Sri.T.P.Vivekananda would
place reliance upon the following judgments:
249
a) N.D.Sirur and Ors Vs. Corporation of the city of
Bangalore and ors
1965(1) MLJ 316
b) K.Pundalika Nayak Vs. City Municipal Council,
Mangalore
1973(1) MLJ 298
c) Mysore Kirloskar Ltd. Vs. Hubli Dharwad
Municipal Corporation and another
1990(3) KLJ Supp. 124
d) Calcutta Municipal Corporation and Ors Vs.
M/s.Shrey Mercantile Pvt. Ltd., and Ors
AIR 2005 SC 1879
e) Om Prakash Agarwal etc., Vs. Giriraj Kishore and
Ors
AIR 1986 SC 726
13. Sri Madhukar Deshpande, learned counsel
who among other common challenges as mentioned
hereinabove, challenges Labour Cess and has made
elaborate submissions on imposition of Labour Cess
being contrary to the procedure stipulated for levy of
such cess under the Welfare Act, as the Government
order notified in terms of the Act does not speak of levy
in the manner that is made. In the said writ petition the
250
demand of Labour Cess though demanded by the
BBMP, it is at the direction of the State Government,
both of whom do not have any power to impose the said
fee in the manner that it is demanded.
14. All other learned counsel who represented the
petitioners have reiterated the submissions of the
aforesaid learned counsel and therefore, they are not
repeated.
RESPONDENT- BBMP :
15. Sri V.Sreenidhi, learned counsel appearing for
the BBMP, in all these cases, would at the outset
contend that the petitioners have filed these petitions
under a mistaken notion that the demand made is a
tax. According to the BBMP it is a fee that is leviable by
the BBMP in terms of powers conferred in it by the bye-
laws. It is his submission that for maintenance of
streets of the City on which materials belonging to the
251
petitioners in all these cases are transported, fee is
collected which cannot be termed as unjustified. He
would further submit that building materials used for
construction are being lavishly placed on roads of the
BBMP while undertaking construction for which the
petitioners in all these cases are bound to pay for the
use of public place to store the materials and hence levy
of ground rent.
15.1. It is his submission that plethora of
documents are to be scrutinized by several officers of
BBMP and infrastructure that is created for scrutiny of
such documents empower the BBMP to charge scrutiny
fee and would defend imposition of Labour Cess on the
direction of Government and it is only the Government
orders issued from time to time under the Welfare Act
that are implemented. He would also further contend
that the fee that is levied being linked to the guidance
252
value is under re-consideration at the hands of the
BBMP.
15.2. Insofar as it concerns imposition of Lake
Rejuvenation Fee, the BBMP would submit that it is at
the direction of the State in terms of the circular of the
Government dated 27.01.2017, the BBMP has issued a
circular on 30.03.2017 as directed by the State for
collection of Lake Rejuvenation Fee and the betterment
charges linked to the guidance value.
15.3. The learned counsel laying emphasis on the
presumption of constitutionality of the enactments
would rely on the judgments of the Apex Court in the
4
case of State of Bihar v. Bihar Distillery Ltd. , and
5
in the case of Bhanumati v. State of U.P. , following
Bihar Distillery and would submit that in the light of
the activities of the Corporation, the demand of fee and
its linking to the guidance value are all valid in law. He
4
(1997) 2 SCC 453
5
(2010) 12 SCC 1
253
further submits that the entire money that is collected
goes into the Corporation fund for several functions
performed by the Corporation in terms of Sections 58
and 59 of the Act.
RESPONDENT - STATE :
16. The learned Government Advocate submitted
only on the issue of imposition of labour cess and lake
rejuvenation fee. It is his contention that in terms of
the Welfare Cess Act and the Rules made thereunder,
collection of labour cess at 1% of the construction cost
has been in force with effect from 26.09.1996 in terms
of Section 3 of the said Act. Rules formulated in terms
of the Act only empower the State to direct the BBMP to
collect cess on behalf of the State as it is a local body.
He would further submit that the Act being a welfare
legislation, the imposition of payment of labour cess
upfront at the time when the construction begins
cannot be said to be illegal. The functions of the Board
254
constituted under Section 22 of the Act is to maintain
the welfare of the labourers coming under the Act. He
would further submit that the petitioners have an
alternative remedy of filing an appeal before the
Appellate Authority under Rule 11 of the Rules and the
writ petition insofar as the challenge to imposition of
labour cess and seeking its payment upfront ought to be
dismissed on account of availability of statutory
alternative remedy. He would submit that these are the
only areas in which the States answer is required in
these petitions and insofar as the other issues are
concerned would toe the lines of the learned counsel
representing the BBMP.
17. On a cumulative analysis of the pleadings and
the submissions made, the impugned imposts/fee that
are called in question in the cluster of these petitions
are as follows:
(1) Ground rent
(2) License fee
255
(3) Scrutiny fee
(4) Security deposit.
(5) Lake rejuvenation fee
(6) Service charges at 1% of the amount
payable to Palike from out of Building
Construction Workers Welfare Cess -
labour cess.
18. I have given my thoughtful consideration to
the rival submissions made by the respective counsel
appearing for the parties and in furtherance whereof,
the following issue would arise for my consideration:
“Whether the impugned imposts/fee (supra)
suffer from want of legal sanction?”
POSITION IN LAW:
19. Before embarking upon the journey of
consideration of the impugned imposts, I deem it
appropriate to consider the position in law with regard
to imposition of such imposts or a fee.
20. Article 265 of the Constitution is the source of
power for the Union and the States to impose taxes in
256
accordance with law. Article 265 of the Constitution of
India reads as follows:
“265. Taxes not to be imposed save by
authority of law.- No tax shall be levied or
collected except by authority of law.”
Therefore, an impost can be made only in accordance
with or and as authorized by law.
21. Tax or a fee has been a subject matter of
interpretation by the Apex Court in several judgments
considering several facets of such imposts. A few that
are germane, out of the lot that are quoted, for
consideration in the lis are as follows:
| (i) | Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments v. | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Sri Shirur | |||
| Mutt 6 | |||
| “45. A neat definition of what “tax” | |||
| means has been given by Latham, C.J. of the | |||
| High Court of Australia | |||
| in Matthews v. Chicory Marketing Board [60 |
6
1954 SCR 1005: AIR 1954 SC 282
257
CLR 263, 276] . “A tax”, according to the
learned Chief Justice, “is a compulsory
exaction of money by public authority for
public purposes enforceable by law and is not
payment for services rendered”. This
definition brings out, in our opinion, the
essential characteristics of a tax as
distinguished from other forms of imposition
which, in a general sense, are included within
it. It is said that the essence of taxation is
compulsion, that is to say, it is imposed under
statutory power without the taxpayer's
consent and the payment is enforced by law
[Vide Lower Mainland Dairy v. Crystal Dairy
Ltd., 1933 AC 168] . The second characteristic
of tax is that it is an imposition made for
public purpose without reference to any
special benefit to be conferred on the payer of
the tax. This is expressed by saying that the
levy of tax is for the purposes of general
revenue, which when collected forms part of
the public revenues of the State. As the object
of a tax is not to confer any special benefit
upon any particular individual, there is, as it
is said, no element of quid pro quo between
258
the taxpayer and the public authority
[See Findlay Shirras on Science of Public
Finance, Vol. I, p. 203] . Another feature of the
taxation is that as it is a part of the common
burden, the quantum of imposition upon the
taxpayer depends generally upon his
capacity to pay.
46. Coming now to fees, a “fee” is
generally defined to be a charge for a
special service rendered to individuals by
some governmental agency. The amount
of fee levied is supposed to be based on
the expenses incurred by the Government
in rendering the service, though in many
cases the costs are arbitrarily assessed.
Ordinarily, the fees are uniform and no
account is taken of the varying abilities
of different recipients to pay [ Vide Lutz
on Public Finance, p. 215] . These are
undoubtedly some of the general
characteristics, but as there may be
various kinds of fees, it is not possible to
formulate a definition that would be
applicable to all cases .
259
47. As regards the distinction
between a tax and a fee, it is argued in
the first place on behalf of the
respondent that a fee is something
voluntary which a person has got to pay
if he wants certain services from the
Government; but there is no obligation on
his part to seek such services and if he
does not want the services, he can avoid
the obligation. The example given is of a
licence fee. If a man wants a licence that
is entirely his own choice and then only
he has to pay the fees, but not otherwise.
We think that a careful examination will
reveal that the element of compulsion or
coerciveness is present in all kinds of
imposition, though in different degrees
and that it is not totally absent in fees.
This, therefore, cannot be made the sole or
even a material criterion for distinguishing a
tax from fees. It is difficult, we think, to
conceive of a tax except, it be something like a
poll tax, the incidence of which falls on all
persons within a State. The house tax has to
be paid only by those who own houses, the
260
land tax by those who possess lands,
municipal taxes or rates will fall on those who
have properties within a municipality.
Persons, who do not have houses, lands or
properties within municipalities, would not
have to pay these taxes, but nevertheless
these impositions come within the category of
taxes and nobody can say that it is the choice
of these people to own lands or houses or
specified kinds of properties, so that there is
no compulsion on them to pay taxes at all.
Compulsion lies in the fact that payment is
enforceable by law against a man in spite of
his unwillingness or want of consent; and this
element is present in taxes as well as in fees.
Of course, in some cases whether a man
would come within the category of a service
receiver may be a matter of his choice, but
that by itself would not constitute a major test
which can be taken as the criterion of this
species of imposition. The distinction between
a tax and a fee lies primarily in the fact that a
tax is levied as a part of a common burden,
while a fee is a payment for a special benefit
or privilege. Fees confer a special capacity,
261
although the special advantage, as for
example in the case of registration fees for
documents or marriage licences, is secondary
to the primary motive of regulation in the
public interest [ Vide Findlay Shirras on
Science of Public Finance, Vol. I, p. 202] .
Public interest seems to be at the basis of all
impositions, but in a fee it is some special
benefit which the individual receives. As
Seligman says, it is the special benefit
accruing to the individual which is the reason
for payment in the case of fees; in the case of
a tax, the particular advantage if it exists at
all is an incidental result of State action
[Vide Seligman's Essays on Taxation,p.408] .”
(Emphasis applied)
The Apex Court has clearly indicated what are the
characteristics of a fee distinguishing it from what could
be tax. What is held by the Apex Court is that a fee is
generally a charge for special service rendered to
individuals by Governmental agencies, which is to be
uniform, without reference to the capacity of the payer.
262
| (ii) | Corporation of Calcutta v. Liberty Cinema7 | |
| “20. The conclusion to which we then | ||
| arrive is that the levy under Section 548 is not | ||
| a fee as the Act does not provide for any | ||
| services of special kind being rendered | ||
| resulting in benefits to the person on whom it | ||
| is imposed. The work of inspection done by | ||
| the Corporation which is only to see that the | ||
| terms of the licence are observed by the | ||
| licensee is not a service to him. No question | ||
| here arises of correlating the amount of the | ||
| levy to the costs of any service. The levy is a | ||
| tax. It is not disputed, it may be stated, that if | ||
| the levy is not a fee, it must be a tax.” |
The Apex Court in the afore-extracted judgment holds
that unless any service of a special kind is rendered
resulting in benefits to the person on whom it is
imposed, the levy would not be a fee, but a tax.
7
AIR 1965 SC 1107
263
| (iii) Nagar Mahapalika v. Durga Das Bhattacharya8 | ||
|---|---|---|
| “10. We pass on to consider the next | ||
| question raised in this appeal, namely, | ||
| whether there was a quid pro quo for the | ||
| licence fees realised by the appellant and | ||
| whether the impost was a fee in the | ||
| strict sense as contemplated by Section | ||
| 294 of the Act. A finding has been | ||
| recorded in the present case by the trial | ||
| court that a sum of Rs 1,43,741/7/0 was | ||
| spent by the Municipal Board for | ||
| providing facilities and amenities to | ||
| owners and drivers of rickshaws. This | ||
| sum of Rs 1,43,741/7/0 is made up of the | ||
| following items: | ||
| “Rs 68,000 spent over the paving of bye- | ||
| lanes, in these the only conveyance that can | ||
| operate is a rickshaw. | ||
| Rs 20,000 spent as expenses for lighting of | ||
| streets and lanes. |
8
(1968) 3 SCR 374
264
Rs 47,741/7/0 spent in making provision for
parking grounds.
Rs 8000 spent on payment of salary to the
staff maintained for issuing licences and
inspecting rickshaws”.
The High Court was of the opinion that
the amount of Rs 68,000 spent for paving of
bye-lanes and Rs 20,000 for lighting of
streets and lanes cannot be considered to
have been spent in rendering services to the
rickshaw owners and rickshaw drivers. The
reason was that under Section 7(a) of the Act
it was the statutory duty of the Municipal
Board to light public streets and places and
under clause (h) of the same section to
construct and maintain public streets, culverts
etc. The expenditure under these two items
was incurred by the Municipal Board in the
discharge of its statutory duty and it is
manifest that the licence fee cannot be
imposed for reimbursing the cost of ordinary
municipal services which the Municipal Board
was bound under the statute to provide to the
general public (See the decision of the Madras
High Court in India Sugar and Refineries
265
Ltd. v. Municipal Council Hospet) [ILR (1943)
Mad 521] . If these two items are excluded
from consideration the balance of expenditure
incurred by the Municipal Board for the
benefit of the licensees is Rs 55,741/7/0. In
other words, the expenditure constituted
about 44% of the total income of the Municipal
Board from the licensees. In our opinion,
there is no sufficient quid pro
quo established in the circumstances of
this case and the High Court was
therefore right in holding that the
imposition of the licence fees at the rate
of Rs 30 on each rickshaw owner and Rs
5 on each rickshaw driver was ultra
vires and illegal.
(Emphasis applied)
The Apex Court in the aforesaid case holds that if there
is no sufficient quid pro quo established, imposition of
fees would become illegal.
266
9
(iv) Delhi Race Club Vs. Union of India
“35. In the light of the tests laid down
in Hingir-Rampur [AIR 1961 SC 459 : (1961) 2
SCR 537] and followed in Kesoram
Industries [(2004) 10 SCC 201] , it is manifest
that the true test to determine the character of
a levy, delineating “tax” from “fee”, is the
primary object of the levy and the essential
purpose intended to be achieved. In the
instant case, it is plain from the scheme of the
Act that its sole aim is regulation, control and
management of horse racing. Such a
regulation is necessary in public interest to
control the act of betting and wagering as
well as to promote the sport in the Indian
context. To achieve this purpose, licences are
issued subject to compliance with the
conditions laid down therein, which inter alia
include maintenance of accounts and
furnishing of periodical returns; amount of
stakes which may be allotted for different
kinds of horses; the measures to be taken for
the training of the persons to become jockeys,
9
(2012) 8 SCC 680
267
to encourage Indian-bred horses and Indian
jockeys; the inclusion and association of such
persons as the Government may nominate as
stewards or members in the conduct and
management of the horse racing. The violation
of the conditions of the licence or the Act is
penalised under the Act besides a provision
for cognizance by a court not inferior to a
Metropolitan Magistrate. To ensure
compliance with these conditions, the 1985
Rules empower the District Officer or an
Entertainment Tax Officer to conduct
inspection of the race club at reasonable
times. Thus, the nature of the impost is not
merely compulsory exaction of money to
augment the revenue of the State but its true
object is to regulate, control, manage and
encourage the sport of horse racing as is
distinctly spelled out in the Act and the 1985
Rules. For the purpose of enforcement,
wide powers are conferred on various
authorities to enable them to supervise,
regulate and monitor the activities
relating to the racecourse with a view to
secure proper enforcement of the
268
provisions. Therefore, by applying the
principles laid down in the aforesaid
decisions, it is clear that the said levy is
a “fee” and not a “tax”.”
(Emphasis applied)
The Apex Court in the afore-said case has again
elaborated as to what is a tax and a fee. By considering
the services rendered by the Race Club, the Apex Court
holds it to be a fee and not a tax.
10
(v) Jindal Stainless Ltd. v. State of Haryana ,
“67.2. Secondly, because the concept of
compensatory tax obliterates the distinction
between a tax and a fee. The essential
difference between a tax and a fee is
that while a tax has no element of quid
pro quo, a fee without that element
cannot be validly levied. The difference
between a tax and the fee has been
examined and elaborated in a long line
of decisions of this Court. (See Commr.,
10
(2017) 12 SCC 1
269
Hindu Religious Endowments v. Sri
LakshmindraThirthaSwamiar of Sri Shirur
Mutt [Commr., Hindu Religious
Endowments v. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha
Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt, AIR 1954 SC 282
: 1954 SCR 1005] , Jagannath Ramanuj
Das v. State of Orissa [Jagannath Ramanuj
Das v. State of Orissa, AIR 1954 SC 400]
, Hingir-Rampur Coal Co. Ltd. v. State of
Orissa [Hingir-Rampur Coal Co. Ltd. v. State
of Orissa, AIR 1961 SC 459] , Corpn. of
Calcutta v. Liberty Cinema [Corpn. of
Calcutta v. Liberty Cinema, AIR 1965 SC
1107] , Kewal Krishan Puri v. State of
Punjab [Kewal Krishan Puri v. State of
Punjab, (1980) 1 SCC 416] , Krishi Upaj
Mandi Samiti v. Orient Paper and Industries
Ltd. [Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti v. Orient Paper
and Industries Ltd., (1995) 1 SCC 655] , State
of Gujarat v. Akhil Gujarat Pravasi V.S.
Mahamandal [State of Gujarat v. Akhil
Gujarat Pravasi V.S. Mahamandal, (2004) 5
SCC 155] and State of W.B. v. Kesoram
Industries Ltd. [State of W.B. v. Kesoram
270
| Industries Ltd., (2004) 10 SCC 201 : AIR 2005 | ||
|---|---|---|
| SC 1646] )”. | ||
| (Emphasis applied) |
case at the outset while considering the difference
between a tax and a fee holds that element of quid pro
quo is essential for an impost to be considered a fee.
POWER TO DEMAND FEES :
| (vi) Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority v. | |
|---|---|
| Sharadkumar Jayantikumar Pasawalla11, |
“7. After giving our anxious
consideration to the contentions raised by Mr
Goswami, it appears to us that in a fiscal
matter it will not be proper to hold that
even in the absence of express provision,
a delegated authority can impose tax or
fee. In our view, such power of imposition
of tax and/or fee by delegated authority
must be very specific and there is no
scope of implied authority for imposition
11
(1992) 3 SCC 285
271
of such tax or fee. It appears to us that
the delegated authority must act strictly
within the parameters of the authority
delegated to it under the Act and it will
not be proper to bring the theory of
implied intent or the concept of
incidental and ancillary power in the
matter of exercise of fiscal power. The
facts and circumstances in the case of District
Council of Jowai are entirely different. The
exercise of powers by the Autonomous Jaintia
Hills Districts are controlled by the
constitutional provisions and in the special
facts of the case, this Court has indicated that
the realisation of just fee for a specific
purpose by the autonomous District was
justified and such power was implied. The
said decision cannot be made applicable in
the facts of this case or the same should not
be held to have laid down any legal
proposition that in matters of imposition of tax
or fees, the question of necessary intendment
may be looked into when there is no express
provision for imposition of fee or tax. The
other decision in Khargram Panchayat Samiti
272
| case [(1987) 3 SCC 82] also deals with the | |
|---|---|
| exercise of incidental and consequential | |
| power in the field of administrative law and | |
| the same does not deal with the power of | |
| imposing tax and fee.” | |
| 8. The High Court has referred to the | |
| decisions of this Court in Hingir case [AIR | |
| 1961 SC 459 : (1961) 2 SCR 537] | |
| and Jagannath Ramanuj case [AIR 1954 SC | |
| 400 : 1954 SCR 1046] and Delhi Municipal | |
| Corporation case [(1983) 3 SCC 229 : 1983 | |
| SCC (Tax) 154 : AIR 1983 SC 617] . It has | |
| been consistently held by this Court that | |
| whenever there is compulsory exaction of | |
| any money, there should be specific | |
| provision for the same and there is no | |
| room for intendment. Nothing is to be | |
| read and nothing is to be implied and | |
| one should look fairly to the language | |
| used. We are, therefore, unable to accept the | |
| contention of Mr Goswami. Accordingly, there | |
| is no occasion to interfere with the impugned | |
| decision of the High Court. The appeal, |
273
| therefore, fails and is dismissed with no order | ||
|---|---|---|
| as to costs. | ||
| (Emphasis applied) |
The Apex Court in the afore-said judgment has
considered manifold circumstances which would
distinguish a tax from a fee and has also held that there
can be no implied power in fiscal matters. The power to
impose must be specific and such imposition must be
within the parameters of the authority to impose. There
cannot be incidental or ancillary power in the matter of
exercise of fiscal power.
| (vii) Calcutta Municipal Corporation v. Shrey | ||
|---|---|---|
| Mercantile (P) Ltd.,12 | ||
| “The short question which arises for | ||
| determination in these civil appeals by grant | ||
| of special leave by the Calcutta Municipal | ||
| whether the imposition for the process of | ||
| change in the name of the owner in the |
12
(2005) 4 SCC 245
274
| assessment books of the Corporation is | |
|---|---|
| in the nature of “a fee” or “tax”. | |
| 17. These well-settled principles have | |
| been reiterated by this Court in the case | |
| of CCE v. Chhata Sugar Co. Ltd. [(2004) 3 | |
| SCC 466] in which it has been held: (SCC pp. | |
| 483-86, paras 18-30) | |
| “18. The Constitution of India | |
| postulates either a tax or a fee. | |
| However, the use of the expression | |
| ‘tax’ or ‘fee’ in a statute is not | |
| decisive; as on a proper | |
| construction thereof and having | |
| regard to its scope and purport, | |
| ‘fee’ may also be held to be a tax. | |
| xx xx xx xx xx | |
| 25. In Liberty Cinema [(1965) 2 | |
| SCR 477 : AIR 1965 SC 1107] this | |
| Court, while interpreting Section 548 of | |
| the Calcutta Municipal Act providing for | |
| grant of a licence, observed: (AIR p. | |
| 1116, para 18) |
275
| ‘The reference to the heading of | ||
|---|---|---|
| Part V can at most indicate that the | ||
| provisions in it were for conferring | ||
| benefit on the public at large. The | ||
| cinema house owners paying the levy | ||
| would not as such owners be getting | ||
| that benefit. We are not concerned with | ||
| the benefit, if any, received by them as | ||
| members of the public for that is not | ||
| special benefit meant for them. We are | ||
| clear in our mind that if looking at the | ||
| terms of the provision authorising the | ||
| levy, it appears that it is not for special | ||
| services rendered to the person on | ||
| whom the levy is imposed, it cannot be | ||
| a fee wherever it may be placed in the | ||
| statute. A consideration of where | ||
| Sections 443 and 548 are placed in the | ||
| Act is irrelevant for determining whether | ||
| the levy imposed by them is a fee or a | ||
| tax.’ | ||
| It was further observed: (AIR | ||
| p.1116, paras 19- 20) | ||
| 19. xx xx xx xx |
276
| 20. The conclusion to which we | ||
|---|---|---|
| then arrive is that the levy under | ||
| Section 548 is not a fee as the Act | ||
| does not provide for any services of | ||
| special kind being rendered resulting | ||
| in benefits to the person on whom it is | ||
| imposed. The work of inspection done | ||
| by the Corporation which is only to see | ||
| that the terms of the licence are | ||
| observed by the licensee is not a | ||
| service to him. No question here | ||
| arises of correlating the amount of | ||
| the levy to the costs of any service. | ||
| The levy is a tax. It is not | ||
| disputed, it may be stated, that if | ||
| the levy is not a fee, it must be a | ||
| tax.’ | ||
| xx xx xx xx xx | ||
| 26. A regulatory statute may also | ||
| contain taxing provisions. | ||
| 27. The decisions of this Court | ||
| point out towards the need of | ||
| existence of the element of quid pro | ||
| quo for imposition of fee; be it to the |
277
| person concerned or be it to a group | |
|---|---|
| to which he belongs; irrespective of | |
| the fact as to whether the benefit of | |
| such service is received directly or | |
| indirectly. | |
| 28. The point at issue is required | |
| to be considered keeping in view the | |
| aforementioned legal position. | |
| 29. By reason of the provisions of | |
| the U.P. Sheera Niyantran Adhiniyam, | |
| 1964, the trade carried out by the | |
| respondents is sought to be regulated. | |
| 30. Some service, therefore, | |
| was required to be rendered by the | |
| State or the statutory authority to | |
| the owners of the factory producing | |
| molasses or the molasses industries | |
| generally if an impost by way of | |
| ‘fee’ was to be levied.” | |
| 18. Applying the above principles to the | |
| present case, we find enumeration of | |
| obligatory and discretionary functions of the |
278
Corporation in Sections 29 and 30 under
which civic services are rendered to the
ratepayers for which taxes are leviable as
mentioned in Section 170 of the Act. As stated
above, the entire Part IV of the Act deals not
only with the levy of taxes, it also deals with
assessments, valuation, collection and
recovery of taxes. The entire machinery for
filing of returns, objections and inspection of
records and properties comes under the part
which deals with taxation. The maintenance
of assessment books, annual reports,
valuation reports, etc. all come under the part
which deals with taxation. Section 183 which
deals with notice of transfer also comes under
the same part. It is true that under Section
183(5), fees are payable for mutation as may
be prescribed under the regulations, still as
stated above, the primary object of such a
charge is to augment the revenue and the levy
of such a charge cannot be treated to be a
part of the regulatory measure. Further, under
the Regulations, the Corporation while
prescribing fees has levied fees on ad
valorem basis which is one more
279
circumstance to show that the impugned levy
is in the nature of tax and not in the nature of
a fee. Further, the quantum of levy indicates
that it is a tax and not a fee. The analysis of
the various provisions of the Act and the
impugned Regulations shows that the
impugned levy is in exercise of power of
taxation under the said Act to augment the
revenues primarily and not as a part of
regulatory measure. As stated above, the
purpose of mutation is to register the transfer
in the records of the Corporation which in turn
would help the Corporation to recover taxes
from the existing taxpayers. Therefore, no
special benefit results to the transferee who is
made statutorily liable to inform the
Corporation of the change, if any, in the name
of the person primarily liable to pay the tax.
21. Now coming to the question of
challenge to the levy as arbitrary and
discriminatory and violative of Article
14, we find that the functions of the
Corporation with regard to mutation
remain the same, whether the applicant
280
is a transferee under a conveyance or a
lessee or a beneficiary under a Will or an
heir in the case of intestate succession.
Once an application for mutation is
made, the same is examined by the
department and after hearing the
objections, if any, the record is ordered
to be changed. Ultimately, the exercise is
for fiscal purpose. Similarly, the
property valuation may be below Rs
50,000 or above Rs 2 lakhs, the function
of the Corporation in making the
mutation entry remains the same.
Similarly, whatever may be the cause of
mutation, whether it is a case of transfer
or devolution, the activity of mutation
remains constant in all the cases. The
expenses incurred in all the cases also
cannot vary, whatever be the value of the
property or the cause of mutation. In the
circumstances, there is no reason given
for charging different rates depending on
the value of the property and the cause
of transfer. By doing so, the incidence of
the levy falls differently on persons
281
| similarly situated resulting in violation | |
|---|---|
| of Article 14 of the Constitution. | |
| Moreover, the quantum of fees is | |
| disproportionate to the so-called | |
| “services” which is one more | |
| circumstance showing arbitrariness in | |
| the levy of such imposition. So far as | |
| Article 14 is concerned, the courts in | |
| India have always examined whether the | |
| classification was based on intelligible | |
| differentia and whether the differentia | |
| had a reasonable nexus with the object | |
| of legislation. (See Om Kumar v. Union of | |
| India [(2001) 2 SCC 386] .) | |
| 22. Applying the said tests to the | |
| impugned levy, we find that the levy is | |
| irrational, arbitrary, discriminatory and | |
| beyond Section 183(5) of the said 1980 | |
| Act. | |
| (Emphasis applied) | |
| The Apex Court here again elaborately considers the | |
| distinction between a fee and a tax and holds that fee | |
| can be charged only for services that are rendered. |
282
22. On an analysis of the afore-extracted
judgments of the Apex Court, it would become
unmistakably clear that certain services that are
rendered to the benefit of the individual upon whom the
fee is charged such a fee can be charged, failing which,
it would take the character of tax. “Even a rupee
cannot be taken from a citizen as fee except in
accordance with law.” It is on the bedrock of the
principles enunciated by the Apex Court, the impugned
imposts/fee are required to be considered. Therefore,
each of the impugned levy is considered separately.
THE KARNATAKA MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS ACT,
13
1976 :
23. The BBMP has now imposed the impugned
demands contending that they are empowered to do so
under the Act and the bye-laws. Therefore, it is
13
‘Act’ for short
283
germane to notice the existence of power under the Act
and the validity of the bye-laws to demand the
impugned fees.
23.1. The provision that empowers imposition of
the aforesaid fee by the BBMP is under the Act and the
Bye-laws. Section 103 of the Act reads as follows:-
“103. Taxes which may be imposed. -
Subject to the general or special orders of
Government, a Corporation shall,-
(a) Omitted.
(b) at rates not exceeding those
specified in this Act, levy any one
or more of the following taxes:-
(i) a tax on buildings or vacant
lands or both situated
within the city (hereinafter
referred to as the property
tax),
… … …
(vii) a duty on certain transfers
of property in the shape of
an additional stamp duty”.
284
23.2. The Act empowers the Corporation to impose
tax on buildings or vacant lands or both situated within
the city. Section 295 of the Act reads as under:
“295. Building bye-laws. - (1) With the
approval of the Government the corporation
may make bye-laws,-
(a) for the regulation or
restriction of the use of sites
or buildings, and
(b) for the regulation or
restriction of building.
(2) Without prejudice to the generality of
the power conferred by clause (b) of sub-
section (1), bye-laws made under that clause
may provide,-
(a) that no insanitary or dangerous
site shall be used for building,
and
(c) for the regulation or restriction of
the construction of buildings
intended for public worship on
sites.
(3) Without prejudice to the generality of
the power conferred by clause (a) of sub-
285
section (1), bye-laws made under that clause
may provide for the following matters:-
(a) information and plans to be
submitted together with
applications for permission to
build;
(b) height of buildings, whether
absolute or relative to the width of
streets;
(c) level and width of foundation,
level of lowest floor and stability
of structure;
(d) number and height of storeys
composing a building and height
of rooms;
(e) provision of sufficient open space,
external or internal, and adequate
means of ventilation;
(f) provision of means of egress in
case of fire;
(g) provision of secondary means of
access for the removal of house
refuse;
286
(h) materials and methods of
construction of external and
parting walls, roofs, and floors;
(i) position, materials and methods of
construction of hearths, smoke
escapes, chimneys, staircases,
privies, drains, cesspools;
(j) paving of yards;
(k) restrictions on the use of
inflammable materials in
buildings;
(l) in the case of wells, dimensions of
the well, the manner of enclosing
it and if the well is intended for
drinking purposes, the means
which shall be used to prevent
pollution of water.
(4) Every bye-law made under sub-
section (1) relating to grant of licence for the
construction or reconstruction of a building
shall provide that planting of trees and plants
in the premises shall be a condition of every
licence granted for the construction or
reconstruction of any such building.
287
(5) No piece of land shall be used as a
site for the construction of a building, and no
building shall be constructed or reconstructed
otherwise than in accordance with the
provisions of this Act and of any rules or bye-
laws made thereunder relating to the use of
building sites or the construction or re-
construction of buildings.”
23.3. This section empowers the Corporation to
make bye-laws with the approval of Government. Bye-
laws can be made on various subjects that are
enumerated in the said section. Section 310 deals with
‘completion certificate and permission to occupy or use’
a particular building and reads as follows:-
“310. Completion certificate and
permission to occupy or use.- (1) Every
person shall, within one month after the
completion of the erection of a building or the
execution of any such work, deliver or send or
cause to be delivered or sent to the
Commissioner at his office notice in writing of
such completion, accompanied by a certificate
288
in the form prescribed in the bye-laws signed
and subscribed in the manner prescribed and
shall give to the Commissioner all necessary
facilities for the inspection of such buildings
or of such work and shall apply for
permission to occupy the building.
(1A) Notwithstanding anything
contained in sub-section (1), where
permission is granted to any person for
erection of a building having more than one
floor, such person shall, within one month
after completion of execution of any of the
floors of such building, deliver or send or
cause to be delivered or sent to the
Commissioner at his office, a notice in writing
of such completion accompanied by a
certificate in the form prescribed in the
byelaws, signed and subscribed in the
manner prescribed and shall give to the
Commissioner all necessary facilities for
inspection of such floor of the building and
may apply for permission to occupy such floor
of the building.
(2) No person shall occupy or permit to
be occupied any such building or part of the
289
building or use or permit to be used the
building or part thereof affected by any work,
until,-
(a) permission has been received
from the Commissioner in this
behalf; or
(b) the Commissioner has failed for
thirty days after receipt of the
notice of completion to intimate his
refusal of the said permission.”
23.4. For grant of completion certificate or
occupancy certificate, compliance with payment of fee
imposed under the bye-laws is mandatory. Section 423
of the Act deals with ‘power to make bye-laws’ and reads
as follows:-
“423. Power to make bye-laws. -
Subject to the provisions of this Act, the rules
and regulations, the Corporation may make
bye-laws,-
(1) for all matters expressly
required or allowed by this Act
to be provided for by byelaws;
290
… … …
(20) (a) for the regulation of burial
and burning and other places for the
disposal of corpses;
(b) for the levy of fees for the use
of such burial and burning
grounds and crematoria as are
maintained by the
Corporation;
(c) for the verification of deaths and
the cause of death;
(d) for the period for which corpses
must be kept for the inspection;
(e) for the period within which
corpses must be conveyed to a
burial or burning ground, and the
mode of conveyance of corpses
through public places.
(Emphasis applied)
The levy of fee under the Act can only be on matters
allowed by the Act. What is permitted under the Act is
291
found only in sub-section 20(b) of Section 423 (Supra),
which empowers collection or levy of fee for use of such
burial, burning grounds and crematoria that are
maintained by the Corporation. In no other section of
the Act the Corporation is empowered to levy fee.
Section 443 of the Act deals with ‘General provisions
regarding licences, registrations and permissions’. Here
again there is no provision to charge fee.
THE BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE BUILDING
BYE- LAWS, 2003:
24. The fee that is charged by the Corporation is
claimed to be in terms of the bye-laws. The present bye-
law that is obtaining in the Corporation is the one that
is notified in the year 2003. Objects and reasons of
Bye-laws read as follows:-
“Now, therefore, in exercise of the
powers conferred by Section 295 read with
Section 423 of the Karnataka Municipal
Corporations Act, 1976 (Karnataka Act 14 of
1977), the Bangalore Mahanagara Palike
292
hereby makes the following bye-laws in
supersession of Bangalore City Corporation
Building Bye-laws, 1983 and the same is
hereby published as required by clause (a) of
Section 426 of the said Act, for the public
inspection.”
The bye-laws are made in terms of the powers conferred
upon the Corporation under the Act in terms of Section
295 read with Section 423 of the Act. This bye-law is
made in supersession of the earlier bye-law of the year
1983. It is at this juncture I deem it appropriate to
consider every levy/fee that is imposed by the
Corporation qua the corresponding power under the
Act, the Rules and the Bye-laws.
GROUND RENT:
25. Bye-law Nos.3.8 to 3.13 deal with ground rent
and read as follows:-
“3.8 Ground rent. - The ground rent for
stocking of building materials on public land
293
as prescribed by the Authority without
causing obstruction to movement of vehicles
and pedestrians subject to the permission of
the Authority.
Note.- (i) The ground rent charges shall
be based on the total floor area of all the
floors in the buildings. The ground rent is
valid for a period of two years only. If the
building is not completed and the occupancy
certificate is not obtained within the period of
two years, further rent is to be paid at half
the rate per annum or part thereof till the
building is completed.
(ii) The ground rent applies only
for the storing of building materials and
not for any other purpose.
(iii) If the public land is utilised for
storing of excavated materials and
debris, separate charges will have to be
paid at four times the rate fixed as
ground rent.
294
3.9 Ground rent for high rise
buildings .- High rise buildings are not
exempted from payment of ground rent
irrespective of the setbacks and coverage.
3.10 Exemptions for ground rent. -
Ground rent may be exempted in the
following cases, namely.-
(1) individual residential bungalows
with front set back of 6 metres
and more with coverage of not
more than 55 percent.
(2) schools, colleges and other
institutions with a front set back
of 8 meters and more with
coverage of not more than 33.33
per cent.
(3) religious and cultural buildings
with a front set back of 8 meters
and more with coverage of not
more than 45 per cent.
(4) heavy industries and Government
buildings with large extents of
295
land capable of storing the
building materials within the
periphery of the property.
Note. - Exemption shall be granted only
on production of undertaking from the
applicant on a stamped paper of Rs. 30 that
the Corporation land, footpath and road will
not be used for stocking building materials as
well as depositing debris and in case of
violation of this condition, they shall be liable
to pay the ground rent at the normal rates in
addition to the penalty of 50 % of the amount
specified which will be recovered as arrears
of tax on land and buildings, etc.
3.13 Revision of licence fee and
ground rent .- The Licence fee and ground
rent are subject to revision from time to time
by the Commissioner without notice.”
25.1. Ground rent is to be imposed for stocking of
building materials on public land as prescribed by the
authority without causing obstruction to the movement
of vehicles and pedestrians subject to prior permission
296
of the authority. Bye-law 3.9 deals with imposition of
ground rent for high rise buildings. Bye-law 3.10
exempts certain buildings for imposition of ground rent
i.e., individual residential bungalows with front setback
for 6 meters; schools, colleges and other institutions
with setback of 8 meters; religious and cultural
buildings with front set back of 8 meters; and heavy
industries and Government buildings with large extents
of land for storing building materials. Bye-law 3.13
deals with revision of licence fee and ground rent.
25.2. Ground rent was so demanded is being
demanded apart from it having no backing in the
statute with blatant non-application of mind as the
petitioners in most of the petitions who have their own
space in the construction area to store or stock
materials for construction would not be using pubic
road or according to the BBMP, the roads maintained by
the BBMP. Those who are stocking construction
297
materials in their own land, without using public
property/road/pavement are also made to pay ground
rent as it is made a condition precedent for either
licence, occupancy certificate or a plan sanction.
Therefore, an individual house owner using the road for
storing construction materials and the owner of multi-
storied buildings/apartments storing building materials
in their own land for construction cannot be treated
alike for the purpose of demand of ground rent. There
cannot be a better example of non-application of mind
in raising the demand under the impugned levies.
25.3. Payment of ground rent was accepted and
paid by citizens hitherto. What became agonizing was
the circular dated 04.09.2015 whereby a revised ground
rent was demanded by linking to the guidance value. It
is at this juncture writ petitions galore challenging the
action of the BBMP in demanding ground rent linking it
to guidance value, all on the strength of a circular dated
298
04.09.2015 again without being backed by any statute
and contrary to the legal spirit of demand of a fee being
“ quid pro quo ”.
LICENCE FEE :
26. The next component of challenge is imposition
of licence fee. Bye-law Nos.3.1 to 3.7.3 deal with
imposition of licence fee. Bye-law No.3.1 deals with
licence to be obtained from the Corporation by those
who intend to erect or re-erect a building or make
material alteration, by submission of application as
specified under Sections 299, 304 and 312 of the Act.
For grant of a licence there are various conditions to be
fulfilled as obtaining under bye-law No.3.2.10 which
reads as follows:
3.2.10. Other certificates .–
Certificates from the following authorities,
wherever applicable.
299
Agency In respect of
3.2.(10.1) B.D.A. (a) Commencement
certificate for the change of
land use in the Development
Plan of Bangalore as per
sections 14 & 15 of the
Karnataka Town and
Country Planning Act, 1961.
(b)Bifurcation or
amalgamation of plot as per
Section 17 of KTCP Act
1961.
(c) Approval in case of
buildings permissible under
special circumstances as
per Schedule I.
(d) Approval of layout plan
in case of Group Housing
Schemes where sital area of
group housing exceeds
4,000 sq. mtrs.
(e) In case of civic amenity
site, leased out by the
Bangalore Development
Authority, com-mencement
certificate under sections 14
and 15 of the Karnataka
Town and Country Planning
Act, 1961 for construction
of the building.
3.2 (10.2) B.W.S.S.B N.O.C. in case of high rise
300
building or group housing
3.2 (10.3) BESCOM N.O.C. in case of high rise
building or group housing.
3.2 (10.4) Fire Services N.O.C. in case of high rise
Dept. building. (Bye-law 2.45
definition)
3.2(10.5) Airport
Authority of
India
N.O.C. in case of high rise
building.
3.2(10.6) Telecommuni- N.O.C in case of high rise
cation Dept. building above 7 floors.
3.2(10.7) Kar.Slum
Clearance &
Imp.Board
N.O.C. with regard to non-
interference with
improvement schemes, in
respect of areas notified
under Section 3 of the
Karnataka Slum Areas
(Improvement & Clearance)
Act, 1973.
3.2(10.8) District N.O.C. in case of permanent
Magistrate and/or semi permanent
cinema theatres including
drive-in-theaters, and petrol
pumps.
3.2(10.9) Director of
Fac. & Boilers
N.O.C. in case of industrial
buildings
3.2(10.10) Controller of N.O.C. in case of buildings
Explosives proposed for storage or sale
of combustible articles.
3.2(10.11) Railways N.O.C. in case of buildings
abutting railway margin.”
301
BUILDING LICENCE FEE:
27. Bye-law 3.7 deals with imposition of building
licence fee and reads as follows:-
“3.7. Building licence fee .- 3.7.1
Every person intending to construct or
reconstruct or alter any building under
sections 299, 304 and 312 of the Act shall
pay to the Corporation fund, the building
licence fee as prescribed by the Authority
subject to a minimum of Rs. 300/- (Rupees
three hundred only).
Provided that no licence fee shall be
payable by the Central and the State
Governments for the construction of buildings
by them on their lands.
Note.- The fixation of licence fee shall
be governed by the following:
(a) For re-erection of existing
buildings, the fees chargeable
shall be the same as for the
erection of new buildings.
302
(b) For additions and alterations in
the existing buildings the fees
shall be chargeable on the added
portions only at the same rate
applicable to the new building.
3.7.2. Part of the building licence fee
which shall not be less than 5% of the licence
fee and subject to a minimum of Rs. 50/-
(Rupees fifty) only shall be paid together with
the application for building licence, as
scrutiny fee, which is not refundable. The
balance amount of licence fee shall be paid on
receipt of demand notice from the Authority.
3.7.3 Licence fee for compound wall at
Rs. one only per running meter shall be paid
on receipt of demand notice. “
In terms of bye-law No.3.7 every person intending to
construct or re-construct or alter any building under
Sections 299, 304 and 312 shall pay building licence
fee, minimum of which is prescribed as Rs.300/-
exempting State Government related construction
303
buildings. Bye-law Nos. 3.7.2 and 3.7.3 also deal with
imposition of licence fee which is non-refundable.
Therefore, the levy of licence fee in the manner that is
done is again a fee which pre-supposes to be a charge
for a service that is rendered and an element of quid pro
quo steps in. For imposition of licence fee again in the
manner that is sought by the Corporation also lacks
sanction of law. The same goes with scrutiny fee.
Scrutiny fee is demanded by the Corporation for
scrutinizing the documents submitted for issuance of
plan and completion certificate or occupancy certificate.
It is submitted on line and permissions taken from all
other authorities for issuance of occupancy certificate
form part of scrutiny fee.
28. The defence of BBMP is that they have set up
computers and several people are working on the job for
grant of occupancy certificates after scrutinizing the
documents, and therefore, levy on scrutiny fee is valid.
304
This submission is unacceptable as any fee must have a
sanction in law. As noticed hereinabove, the ground
rent, licence fee and the scrutiny fee are all de hors the
power under the Act.
29. The afore-narrated bye-laws are the ones that
the BBMP claims to empower them to levy fee for
ground rent, licence, building licence, scrutiny and
demand of security deposit. Framing of building bye-
laws is dealt with under Sections 295 and 423.
Nowhere the said sections empower framing of bye-laws
empowering imposition of any fee by the Corporation. As
stated hereinabove, the only place the word ‘fee’ is found
in the subjects enumerated in Section 423 which deal
with the power to make bye-laws is in case of burial and
burning ground or a crematoria that is maintained by
the Corporation.
305
30. Therefore, there is no power under Act to
impose the impugned levies i.e., ground rent, licence
fee, building licence fee, scrutiny fee and security
deposit. It is trite that fee can be imposed only if there
is quid pro quo . Quid pro quo in legal parlance is that
’fee’ that can be imposed for a service that is rendered.
The principle of quid pro quo or a fee chargeable for a
service rendered as considered by the Apex Court
(supra) , wherein the Apex Court has held that there
should be reasonable co-relation for
imposition/collection of a fee, apart from the fact that it
should be with authority of law.
JUDICIAL INTERPRETATION OF FEE :
31. Levy of fee in its exclusiveness has also been a
subject matter of judicial interpretation. The Division
Bench of the High Court of Calcutta considering
drainage development fees imposed by Calcutta
306
Municipal Corporation and others held in ASIAN
LEATHER LIMITED AND OTHERS v. KOLKATA
14
MUNICIPAL CORPORAITON AND OTHERS as
follows:-
“12. At this juncture, it will be profitable
to refer to the well-known proposition of law
that a natural person has the capacity to do
all lawful things unless his capacity has been
curtailed by some rule of law. It is equally a
fundamental principle that in case of a
statutory corporation, it is just the other way.
The Corporation has no power to do anything
unless those powers are conferred on it by
the statutes, which crates it. See:
Manimuddin Bepari v. Chairman of the
Municipal Commissioner, Dacca reported in
MANU/WB/0316/1935: 40 CWN 17.
… … …
14. Bearing in mind the aforesaid
principles and after going through the
various provisions of the Act, the Rules
and the Regulations framed thereunder,
referred to by Mr. Mitra, the learned
14
(2007) SCC OnLine Cal 268
307
senior Advocate appearing on behalf of
the appellant, we do not find that either
in the Act or the Rules or the Regulations
framed thereunder, any right or
authority has been to the Corporation to
realize drainage development fees from
the owners of the land or the building at
the time of sanction of the building plan
as condition precedent for grant of
permission to raise building.
… … …
23. We have already indicated that
unless specifically authorized by the
statute, a Corporation cannot realize any
amount from the citizen and so far, the
delegated legislation is concerned,
nothing can be implied for the
justification of realization of any amount
either as tax or as fees, which is not
specifically authorized.
(Emphasis applied)
32. A Division Bench of High Court of Gujarat
again considering imposition of permission fee on
installation of mobile communication towers by the
308
Gujarat Urban Development and Urban Housing
Department holds in INDUS TOWERS LIMITED v.
15
STATE OF GUJARAT AND OTHERS as follows:-
“24. In this regard it may be germane to
refer to the provisions of Articles 265 and
243-X of the Constitution which reads thus:
265. Taxes not to be imposed
save by authority of law. “No tax
shall be levied or collected except
by authority of law.”
(a) authorize a Municipality to
levy, collect and appropriate such
taxes, duties, tolls and fees in
accordance with such procedure
and subject to such limits;
(b) assign to a Municipality such
taxes, duties tolls and fees levied
and collected by the State
Government for such purposes
and subject to such conditions
and limits;
15
(2010) SCC OnLine Guj 3777
309
(c) provide the making such
grants-in-aid to the Municipalities
from the Consolidated Fund of the
State; and
(c) provide for constitution of such
Funds for crediting all moneys
received, respectively, by or on
behalf of the Municipalities and
also for the withdrawal of such
moneys there from, as may be
specified in the law.
… … …
27. Apart from Article 265 which
prohibits levy or recovery of tax except by
authority of law, Article 243-X
specifically provides that the Legislature
of a State may, by law authorize a
Municipality to levy, collect and
appropriate such taxes, duties, tolls and
fees in accordance such procedure and
subject to such limits as may be specified
by law. Thus, on a conjoint reading of
Articles 265 and 243-X, there is a
prohibition against levy and recovery of
tax by a Municipality unless the
310
Legislature of the State in exercise of
powers under Article 243-X authorizes
the Municipality to levy and collect such
taxes, fees etc. In the present case, a
bare reading of the impugned
Government resolution indicates that the
same has not been issued in exercise of
any statutory power. However, even if the
statutory provision under which the
power is derived is not mentioned, so
long as there is some statutory provision
under which such power is derived, the
Government resolution would not stand
vitiated . In the circumstances it would next
be required to be examined as to whether
there is any statutory provision which vests
in the State or the Municipal Corporations or
Municipalities, the power to levy and collect
annual permission fees and installation
charges for erection of mobile
telecommunication towers put up by cellular
companies.
… … …
29. Since the levy in question is termed
annual permission fee and installation
311
charge , it may be pertinent to refer to the
provisions of Chapter XXII of the BPMC Act
which provides for “Licences and Permits”.
The said Chapter is subdivided into nine
parts as under:
1. Licensing of Surveyors, Architechs or
Engineers, Structural Designers, Clerks
of Works and Plumbers;
2. Trade licences and other licences for
keeping animals and certain articles;
3. Licences for sale in municipal
markets;
4. Licences for private markets;
5. Licences for sale of Articles of Food
outside of Markets;
6. Licensing of Butchers, etc.;
7. Licensing for diary products;
8. Licences for hawking, etc.; and
9. General provisions regarding licences
and permits.
… … …
34. In the light of the aforesaid
discussion, it is apparent that insofar as
Municipal Corporations are concerned,
312
the respondents have not been in a
position to point out any statutory force
behind the levy of annual permission fee
and/or installation charges. The Apex
Court in Commissioner of Income Tax,
Udaipur v. McDowell and Co. Limited (supra)
has held thus:
“Tax”, “duty”, “cess’ or “fee”
constituting a class denotes to various
kinds of imposts by State in its
sovereign power of taxation to raise
revenue for the State. Within the
expression of each specie each
expression denotes different kind of
impost depending on the purpose for
which they are levied. This power can
be exercised in any of its manifestation
only under any law authorizing levy
and collection of tax as envisaged under
Article 265 which uses only the
expression that no “tax” shall be levied
and collected except authorised by law.
It is its elementary meaning conveys
that to support a tax legislative action is
essential, it cannot be levied and
313
collected in the absence of any
legislative sanction by exercise of
executive power of State under Article
73 by the Union or Ariticle 162 by the
State.”
In the light of the law laid down by the
Supreme Court in the decision cited
hereinabove, it is apparent that in
absence of legislative sanction, the State
Government in exercise of its executive
power under Article 162 cannot levy and
collect annual permission fee and
installation charges in relation to mobile
telecommunication towers put up by
Cellular companies.”
(Emphasis applied)
It is also germane to notice the judgment of the Division
Bench of the High Court of Madras in the case of
SHRINE BASILICA OF OUR LADY OF HEALTH
16
VAILANKANNI v. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER
interpreting power of the Municipality to levy, collect
16
(1998)2 CTC 327
314
and appropriate taxes, tolls and fees, wherein it is held
that it can only be in accordance with the procedure
prescribed in law.
33. Therefore, the synthesis of the interpretation
of a tax or a fee that can be levied by a Corporation
upon its citizens as considered in the judgments (supra),
would lead to an unmistakable conclusion that a fee is a
charge for special service rendered to individuals by a
governmental agency; the amount of fee levied is
supposed to be based on expenses incurred by
Government in rendering service. Fee is uniform and no
account is taken of payers’ capacity. Imposition of fee
can only be as a quid pro quo . The licence fee that is
payable to the BBMP is for approving construction plan
and issuing licence. An applicant for approval of a plan
would submit a blue print of a plan prepared at his own
expense along with no objection and other supporting
315
documents as prescribed in law and the building will
have to be constructed only upon a licence being given
and plan being approved. Apart from the fact that there
is no statutory backing for such a fee, the levy of such
fee is even otherwise illegal. Scrutiny fee is again
charged for scrutinizing documents submitted for
issuance of a licence. It is co-terminus with licence fee
and therefore, would lose its legs to stand for the very
same reason as that of licence fee.
The other fee that is called in question is a Lake
Rejuvenation Fee.
LAKE REJUVENATION FEE :
34. Lake Rejuvenation Fee is imposed invoking
Section 18(1)(A) of the Karnataka Town and Country
17
Planning Act, 1961 , which reads as under:
“(1) Notwithstanding anything
contained in this Act, the Planning
17
‘KTCP Act’ for short
316
Authority while granting permission for
development of land or building levy
and collect from the owner of such land
or building -
(i) A Cess for the purpose of carrying
out any water supply scheme;
(ii) A surcharge for the purpose of
formation of ring road;
(iii) A Cess for the purpose of
improving slums; and
(iv) A surcharge for the purpose of
establishing Mass Rapid
Transport System at such rate but
all the above levies together not
exceeding one tenth of the market
value of the land or building as
may be prescribed ….”
A bare perusal at the said Section would clearly indicate
that the Planning Authority while granting permission
for development of land or building, levy and collect a
cess for purpose for carrying out water supply scheme,
a surcharge for formation of ring road, a cess for the
317
purpose of improving slums, a surcharge for
establishing mass rapid transport system. Therefore,
Section 18(1)(A) of the KTCP Act empowers the Planning
Authority, which is the BDA to collect Lake
Rejuvenation Fee on the circumstances narrated
therein. This would not even remotely authorize the
BBMP to expressly or impliedly charge or levy Lake
Rejuvenation Fee.
35. It is to be noticed that Lake Rejuvenation Fee
is not imposed in terms of the Act, but on the strength
of a circular dated 27.01.2017. The Act itself not
authorizing charge of any fee of the kind that is charged
by the BBMP, the circular can hardly generate power to
impose such fee. It is also to be noticed that BBMP has
made the levy of Lake Rejuvenation Fee applicable to all
applications coming in for a building licence and
sanction of plan in terms of their circular dated
30.03.2017. Therefore, both the circulars of the
318
Government and the BBMP would on the face of it
become unenforceable as they seek to impose certain
impost without any statutory backing for such
imposition.
LINKING THE IMPUGNED LEVY TO GUIDANCE
VALUE:
36. The impugned exorbitant demands now made
by the Corporation are all on the strength of certain
circulars. Ground rent, licence fee, scrutiny fee,
building licence fee and lake rejuvenation fee are linked
to guidance value by issuing circulars dated
04.09.2015, 27.01.2017 and 30.03.2017. Guidance
value of a property is a value fixed by a Committee
constituted under Section 45B of the Karnataka Stamp
Act, 1957. The said guidance value so fixed by the
Committee would vary on the location of the property.
There can be no relevance to determine the impugned
levies made by the Corporation linking ground rent, lake
rejuvenation fee, licence fee are all on the basis of the
319
aforesaid circular dated 04.09.2015. Notwithstanding
the fact that the circulars cannot seen to impose the
impugned levies or link the same to the guidance value,
the guidance value of property is a value fixed by a
committee constituted under Section 45(b) of the Stamp
Act, which is for the purpose of determining the value
below which the property cannot be sold based on
which registration charges and stamp duty are
determined and for detection of cases of under-
valuation in terms of Section 45(a) of the Stamp Act.
Linking ground rent to the guidance value is of no
relevance to determine impugned levies made by the
Corporation. The guidance value so fixed by the
Committee under the Stamp Act would without any
doubt vary on the location of the property. Therefore,
imposition of ground rent, linking of licence fee and
scrutiny fee to the guidance value are manifestly
arbitrary, as the guidance value would vary from place
to place. As an illustration the guidance value in the
320
central business district (CBD) of Bangalore has sky
rocketed and the guidance value in a remote area on the
out-skirts of Bangalore is at a different value which is
admittedly lesser. Linking guidance value for the same
purpose of imposition of ground rent would result in
gross arbitrariness and is violative of Article 14 of the
Constitution of India. It is these circulars that linked
the demand of the impugned levy to the guidance value
that left the citizens bleeding and the business houses
fleeing.
37. At the same time it cannot be said that a
citizen or any person who uses the public property, can
use it without payment of any fee. The fee is chargeable
for storing materials on the public property or the
Corporation property, at a fee properly determined and
not by the guidance value, that too after bringing in
suitable amendment to the law and not under the bye-
laws that are now being used to impose ground rent,
321
licence fee, scrutiny fee and security deposit. The same
goes with lake rejuvenation fee that is imposed, which is
also linked to guidance value, drawing an imaginary
power under the KTCP Act.
DEFENCE OF THE BBMP :
38. In the light of the aforesaid analysis, it is now
germane to notice the defence of the BBMP in all these
cases in justification of the impugned fee. The learned
counsel Sri.V.Sreenidhi, representing the BBMP, seeks
to justify the impugned levies taking shelter under
Section 295 of the Act, with particular reference to sub-
section (1) (a) and (b) of Section 295. The aforesaid
Section reads as follows:
“ 295. Building bye- laws - (1) With
the approval of the Government the
Corporation may make bye-laws, -
(a) for the regulation or restriction of
the use of sites of buildings,
and
322
(b) for the regulation or restriction of
building.”
Sub-section (1)(a) deals with regulation or restriction of
use of sites or of buildings. Section (1) (b) deals with
regulation or restrictions of a building. It is
unimaginable how the BBMP can impose the fee taking
shelter under Section 295. Though Section 295 deals
with the power of making bye-laws for regulation of
buildings, nowhere empowers the BBMP to impose the
impugned levy. The argument of the learned counsel is
that funds are required for the BBMP for performing its
manifold activities for the benefit of citizens, in the
upkeep of roads, to maintain cleanliness of the City,
computerization or digitization of all the services which
is the reason for imposition/demand of impugned levy is
also unacceptable for the reason that the BBMP is
collecting fee for such activity under Sections 466 and
323
467 of the Act. Sections 466 and 467 of the Act read as
follows:-
“ 466. Power to declare expenses on
certain works as improvement
expenses .—If the expenses to be recovered
have been incurred or are to be incurred in
respect of any work mentioned,—
(a) in section 189, section 225,
section 227, clause (b) of sub-
section (1) of section 272, section
283, sub-sections (1) and (2) of
section 328, section 332 section
337, section 376 or section 462; or
(b) in any rule made under this Act in
which this section is made
applicable to such expenses, the
Commissioner may, if he thinks fit
and with the approval of the
standing committee, declare such
expenses to be improvement
expenses.
467. Improvement expenses by
whom payable .—(1) Improvement expenses
324
shall be a charge on the premises, in respect
of which or for the benefit of which the same
shall have been incurred and shall be
recoverable in instalments of such amounts,
and at such intervals, as will suffice to
discharge such expenses together with
interest thereon within such period not
exceeding twenty years as the Commissioner
may in each case determine.
(2) The said instalments shall be
payable by the owner or occupier of the
premises on which the expenses are charged:
Provided that when the occupier pays
any such instalment he shall be entitled to
deduct the amount thereof from the rent
payable by him to the owner or to recover the
same from the owner.”
The aforesaid provision of the Act empowers
improvement charges to be collected from citizens by
the BBMP which is being collected at rates specified
from time to time. It is under these provisions of law
improvement charges are being collected from citizens.
325
Therefore, the argument that the City has to be kept
clean, roads have to be kept in order and for other
manifold activities all the levies are valid as they to into
the BBMP’s fund and the fund is regulated under the
Act are all rendered unsustainable as power under the
Act for imposition of such levy being unavailable.
Linking the impugned levies to the guidance value, as
stated hereinabove, has led the citizens bleeding. For
the reasons indicated hereinabove, the argument
advanced by the BBMP for justification of any of the
impugned levies to the extent indicated and considered
in this order, are unacceptable.
39. Insofar as the judgments relied on by the
learned counsel appearing for the BBMP is concerned,
the Apex Court in the case of STATE OF BIHAR V.
18
BIHAR DISTILLERY LTD. , holds as follows:
“17. Now coming to the reasoning in the
impugned judgment, we must say with all
18
(1997) 2 SCC 453
326
respect that we have not been able to
appreciate it. The approach of the court, while
examining the challenge to the
constitutionality of an enactment, is to start
with the presumption of constitutionality. The
court should try to sustain its validity to the
extent possible. It should strike down the
enactment only when it is not possible to
sustain it. The court should not approach the
enactment with a view to pick holes or to
search for defects of drafting, much less
inexactitude of language employed. Indeed,
any such defects of drafting should be ironed
out as part of the attempt to sustain the
validity/constitutionality of the enactment.
After all, an Act made by the legislature
represents the will of the people and that
cannot be lightly interfered with. The
unconstitutionality must be plainly and
clearly established before an enactment is
declared as void. The same approach holds
good while ascertaining the intent and
purpose of an enactment or its scope and
application. Now, the result of the impugned
judgment is that the Amending Act has
327
become an exercise in futility — a purposeless
piece of legislation. And this result has been
arrived at by pointing out some drafting errors
and some imperfection in the language
employed. If only the High Court had looked
into the minutes of the meeting dated 15-12-
1989 and the two letters of the Commissioner
aforementioned, it would have become clear
that the Amending Act was doing no more
than repeating contents of the said letters and
placing the legislative imprimatur on them. As
the impugned judgment itself suggests, part
of the imperfection of language is perhaps
attributable to translation from Hindi to
English. Indeed, it is surprising that the Court
has not even referred to the long preamble to
the Act which clearly sets out the context and
purpose of the said enactment. It was put in
at such length only with a view to aid the
interpretation of its provisions. It was not
done without a purpose. To call the entire
exercise a mere waste is, to say the least,
most unwarranted besides being
uncharitable. The court must recognize the
fundamental nature and importance of
328
| legislative process and accord due regard and | ||
|---|---|---|
| deference to it, just as the legislature and the | ||
| executive are expected to show due regard | ||
| and deference to the judiciary. It cannot also | ||
| be forgotten that our Constitution recognises | ||
| and gives effect to the concept of equality | ||
| between the three wings of the State and the | ||
| concept of “checks and balances” inherent in | ||
| such scheme. | ||
| Following the judgment in the case of BIHAR | ||
| DISTILLERY, the Apex Court in the case of | ||
| BHANUMATI V. STATE OF U.P.19 has held as follows: | ||
| “82. In State of Bihar v. Bihar Distillery | ||
| Ltd. [(1997) 2 SCC 453] this Court in SCC | ||
| para 17 at p. 466 : JT para 18 at pp. 865-66 | ||
| of the Report laid down certain principles on | ||
| how to judge the constitutionality of an | ||
| enactment. This Court held that in this | ||
| exercise the Court should: | ||
| (a) try to sustain validity of the impugned law | ||
| to the extent possible. It can strike down the |
19
(2010) 12 SCC 1
329
enactment only when it is impossible to
sustain it;
(b) the Court should not approach the
enactment with a view to pick holes or to
search for defects of drafting or for the
language employed;
(c) the Court should consider that the Act
made by the legislature represents the will of
the people and that cannot be lightly
interfered with;
(d) the Court should strike down the Act only
when the unconstitutionality is plainly and
clearly established;
(e) the Court must recognise the fundamental
nature and importance of legislative process
and accord due regard and deference to it.
This Court abstracted those principles from
various judgments of this Court.
83. In State of Bihar [(1997) 2 SCC 453]
this Court also considered the observations of
Lord Denning in Seaford Court Estates
Ltd. v. Asher [(1949) 2 KB 481 : (1949) 2 All
ER 155 (CA)] and highlighted that the job of a
330
judge in construing a statute must proceed on
the constructive task of finding the intention
of Parliament and this must be done (a) not
only from the language of the statute but also
(b) upon consideration of the social conditions
which gave rise to it (c) and also of the
mischief to remedy which the statute was
passed and if necessary (d) the judge must
supplement the written word so as to give
“force and life” to the intention of the
legislature. According to Lord Denning these
are the principles laid down in Heydon
case [(1584) 3 Co Rep 7a : 76 ER 637] and is
considered one of the safest guides today.
This Court also accepted those principles.
(See Bihar Distillery Ltd. case [(1997) 2 SCC
453] , SCC para 20 at p. 468 : JT para 21 at
p. 867 of the Report.)
84. Reliance was also placed on
another decision of this Court in Dharam
Dutt v. Union of India [(2004) 1 SCC 712] .
This judgment is relevant in order to deal with
the argument of the learned counsel for the
appellants that in reducing the period for
331
bringing the no-confidence motion from “two
years” to “one year” and then in reducing the
required majority from 2/3rd to simple
majority, the legislature was guided by the
sinister motive of some influential Ministers to
get rid of a local leader who, as a Pradhan of
Panchayat, may have become very powerful
and competitor of the Minister in the State.
85. In Dharam Dutt [(2004) 1 SCC 712]
this Court held that if the legislature is
competent to pass a particular law, the
motives which impelled it to act are really
irrelevant. If the legislature has competence,
the question of motive does not arise at all
and any inquiry into the motive which
persuaded Parliament into passing the Act
would be of no use at all.”
The Apex Court in the case of STATE OF U.P. V.
20
VAM ORGANIC CHEMICALS LTD., has held as
follows:
20
(2004) 1 SCC 225
332
“30. The locus classicus on the
distinction between a “fee” and a “tax” is the
decision of this Court in Commr., H.R.E. v. Sri
Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Sri Shirur
Mutt [AIR 1954 SC 282 : 1954 SCR 1005] . In
that case the subject-matter of challenge was,
inter alia, Section 76 of the Madras Hindu
Religious and Charitable Endowments Act,
1951 under which religious institutions were
required to make a contribution at 5 per cent
of their income towards the services rendered
by the Government and its officers. According
to the State this annual contribution was a
fee for overseeing the working of the religious
institutions. According to the religious
institutions, the levy was a tax which the
State was incompetent to impose.
31. The distinctive characteristics of a
tax and fee were laid down. As far as fee is
concerned, it was held that: (AIR p. 295, para
44)
“[A] fee is generally defined to be a
charge for a special service rendered to
individuals by some governmental
333
agency. The amount of fee levied is supposed
to be based on the expenses incurred by the
Government in rendering the service, though
in many cases the costs are arbitrarily
assessed. Ordinarily, the fees are uniform
and no account is taken of the varying
abilities of different recipients to pay…. These
are undoubtedly some of the general
characteristics, but as there may be various
kinds of fees, it is not possible to formulate a
definition that would be applicable to all
cases.”
(emphasis supplied)
33. This Court struck down Section 76
on the ground that the annual contribution
was a tax as there was “total absence of any
correlation between the expenses incurred by
the Government and the amount raised by
contribution under the provision of Section 76
and in these circumstances the theory of a
return or counterpayment or ‘quid pro quo’
cannot have any possible application to this
case” (AIR p. 296, para 49).
(emphasis supplied)
334
34. The word “service” in the context of
a fee could, therefore, include, a levy for a
compulsory measure undertaken vis-à-vis the
payer in the interest of the public. This
“coercive” measure has been subsequently
judicially clarified to mean a “regulatory
measure”. But in the case of both kinds of
services, whether compulsorily imposed or
voluntarily accepted, there would have to be a
correlation between the levy imposed and the
“counter payment or quid pro quo”. However,
correlationship between the levy and the
services rendered is one of general character
and not of mathematical exactitude. All that is
necessary is that there should be a
reasonable “relationship” between levy of the
fee and the service rendered. [Sreenivasa
General Traders v. State of A.P., (1983) 4 SCC
353] Contrariwise when there is no such
correlation, the levy, despite its nomenclature
is in fact a tax. In Corpn. of Calcutta v. Liberty
Cinema [AIR 1965 SC 1107] the licence fee
charged under Section 548 of the Calcutta
Municipal Act, 1951 had been challenged on
the ground that no service was rendered
335
| commensurate with the tax. This Court said | ||
|---|---|---|
| that the levy was a tax which the State was | ||
| competent to impose: (AIR pp. 1116-17, para | ||
| 20) “[T]he Act does not provide for any | ||
| services of special kind being rendered | ||
| resulting in benefits to the person on whom it | ||
| is imposed. The work of inspection done by | ||
| the Corporation which is only to see that the | ||
| terms of the licence are observed by the | ||
| licensee is not a service to him. No question | ||
| here arises of correlating the amount of the | ||
| levy to the costs of any service. The levy is a | ||
| tax. It is not disputed, it may be stated, that if | ||
| the levy is not a fee, it must be a tax.” | ||
| (emphasis supplied) | ||
In the aforesaid judgment the Apex Court has impliedly
overruled BIHAR DISTILLERY and has clearly held that
the element of quid pro quo cannot be diluted in the
charge of a fee, failing which, it would become
imposition of tax and not a fee. The aforesaid judgment
considers the judgments on the issue and follows
336
SIRUR MUTT and LIBERTY CINEMA (supra) . The
subsequent judgment relied on by the learned counsel
with regard to constitutionality would not be applicable
to the facts of the case at hand as it followed BIHAR
DISTILLERY which stands impliedly overruled in the
judgment (supra) .
40. As held by the Apex Court in the case of
AHMEDABAD URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
(supra) , imposition of a tax or a fee by a delegated
authority must be very specific and there is no scope of
implied authority for imposition of such tax or fee. The
authority must act strictly within the parameters of the
Act. The theory of implied intent or the concept of
incidental and ancillary power, as submitted by the
learned counsel appearing for the BBMP cannot be
accepted.
337
LABOUR CESS UNDER THE WELFARE CESS ACT:
41. The issue that remains for consideration is
imposition of labour cess in terms of the statute. Writ
Petition No.8849 of 2020 among other cases is taken up
for consideration in so far as it pertains to labour cess,
which is called in question in several of the writ
petitions. The demand for labour cess is under the
Welfare Cess Act and the Rules framed there under. The
Welfare Cess Act was promulgated for levy and
collection of cess on the cost of construction incurred by
employers with a view to augmenting resources of the
Building and Other Construction Workers’ Welfare
Boards constituted under the Welfare Cess Act. Certain
provisions in the Welfare Cess Act that are germane for
consideration in the subject lis are extracted hereunder
for the purpose of quick reference:
“3. Levy and collection of cess .—(1)
There shall be levied and collected a cess for
338
the purposes of the Building and Other
Construction Workers (Regulation of
Employment and Conditions of Service) Act,
1996 at such rate not exceeding two per cent.
but not less than one per cent. of the cost of
construction incurred by an employer, as the
Central Government may, by notification in
the Official Gazette, from time to time specify.
(2) The cess levied under sub-section (1)
shall be collected from every employer in such
manner and at such time, including deduction
at source in relation to a building or other
construction work of a Government or of a
public sector undertaking or advance
collection through a local authority where an
approval of such building or other
construction work by such local authority is
required, as may be prescribed.
(3) The proceeds of the cess collected
under sub-section (2) shall be paid by the
local authority or the State Government
collecting the cess to the Board after
deducting the cost of collection of such cess
339
not exceeding one per cent. of the amount
collected.
(4) Notwithstanding anything contained
in sub-section (1) or sub-section (2), the cess
leviable under this Act including payment of
such cess in advance may, subject to final
assessment to be made, be collected at a
uniform rate or rates as may be prescribed on
the basis of the quantum of the building or
other construction work involved.
… … …
5. Assessment of cess. —(1) The officer
or authority to whom or to which the return
has been furnished under section 4 shall,
after making or causing to be made such
inquiry as he or it thinks fit and after
satisfying himself or itself that the particulars
stated in the return are correct, by order,
assess the amount of cess payable by the
employer.
(2) If the return has not been furnished
to the officer or authority under sub-section (2)
of section 4, he or it shall, after making or
340
causing to be made such inquiry as he or it
thinks fit, by order, assess the amount of cess
payable by the employer.
(3) An order of assessment made under
sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) shall specify
the date within which the cess shall be paid
by the employer.
… … …
8. Interest payable on delay in
payment of cess .—If any employer fails to
pay any amount of cess payable under
section 3 within the time specified in the order
of assessment, such employer shall be liable
to pay interest on the amount to be paid at
the rate of two per cent. for every month or
part of a month comprised in the period from
the date on which such payment is due till
such amount is actually paid.
… … …
11. Appeals .—(1) Any employer
aggrieved by an order of assessment made
under section 5 or by an order imposing
penalty made under section 9 may, within
such time as may be prescribed, appeal to
341
such appellate authority in such form and in
such manner as may be prescribed.
(2) Every appeal preferred under sub-
section (1) shall be accompanied by such fees
as may be prescribed.
(3) After the receipt of any appeal under
sub-section (1), the appellate authority shall,
after giving the appellant an opportunity of
being heard in the matter, dispose of the
appeal as expeditiously as possible.
(4) Every order passed in appeal under
this section shall be final and shall not be
called in question in any court of law.
… … …
14. Power to make rules. —(1) The
Central Government may, by notification in
the Official Gazette, make rules for carrying
out the provisions of this Act.
(2) Without prejudice to the generality of
the foregoing power, such rules may provide
for all or any of the following matters,
namely:—
342
(a) the manner in which and the time
within which the cess shall be
collected under sub-section (2) of
section 3;
(b) the rate or rates of advance cess
leviable under sub-section (4) of
section 3;
(c) the particulars of the returns to be
furnished, the officer or authority
to whom or to which such returns
shall be furnished and the
manner and time of furnishing
such returns under sub-section (1)
of section 4;
(d) the powers which may be
exercised by the officer or
authority under section 7;
(e) the authority which may impose
penalty under section 9;
(f) the authority to which an appeal
may be filed under sub-section (1)
of section 11 and the time within
343
which and the form and manner
in which such appeal may be
filed;
(g) the fees which shall accompany
an appeal under sub-section (2) of
section 11; and
(h) any other matter which has to be,
or may be, prescribed.
(3) Every rule made under this Act shall
be laid, as soon as may be after it is made,
before each House of Parliament, while it is in
session for a total period of thirty days which
may be comprised in one session or in two or
more successive sessions, and if, before the
expiry of the session immediately following
the session or the successive sessions
aforesaid, both Houses agree in making any
modification 5 in the rule or both Houses
agree that the rule should not be made, the
rule shall thereafter have effect only in such
modified form or be of no effect, as the case
may be; so, however, that any such
modification or annulment shall be without
344
prejudice to the validity of anything
previously done under that rule.”
Section 3 of the Welfare Cess Act deals with levy and
collection of cess and mandates that cess shall be levied
and collected under the Welfare Cess Act at such rate
not exceeding 2% but not less than 1% of the cost of
construction incurred by the employer as the Central
Government or the State Government may specify in
this behalf from time to time.
42. The cess levied under sub-section (1) is to be
collected from every employer. Two modes of collection
are envisaged under sub-section (2). Deduction at
source in relation to a building or other construction
work of a Government or of a public sector undertaking
or advance collection through a local authority where an
approval of such building or other construction by such
local authority is required, as may be prescribed. The
local authority which is empowered to collect cess in
345
terms of the Welfare Cess Act is the BBMP in the case at
hand. Under sub-section (3) the proceeds of cess
collected is to be paid by the local authority or the State
Government who has collected the cess to the Board
after collecting the cost of collection of such cess not
exceeding 1% of the amount so collected.
43. The assessment of cess is dealt with under
Section 5 of the Welfare Cess Act. Section 8 deals with
interest payable on delay in payment of cess. Any
dispute with regard to the assessment of cess under
Section 5 or imposition of interest or penalty under
Sections 8 and 9 is appealable under Section 11.
Section 14 of the Welfare Cess Act empowers the
Government to make Rules for the purpose of carrying
out the provisions of the Act. The Rules are to be made
with regard to the manner and the time within which
cess shall be paid and collected under sub-section (2) of
Section 3 (supra).
346
44. In exercise of powers conferred by sub-section
(1) of Section 14 rules have been framed by the Central
Government viz., the Building and Other Construction
Workers’ Welfare Cess Rules, 1998 (for short ‘the Cess
Rules’). Rule 3 deals with levy of cess for collection to
be made under Section 3 of the Welfare Cess Act.
Relevant rules for the purpose of lis are Rules 3, 4, 8
and 11 which are extracted hereunder for the purpose
of ready reference:
“3. Levy of cess .- For the purpose of
levy of cess under sub-section (1) of section 3
of the Act, cost of construction shall include
all expenditure incurred by an employer in
connection with the building or other
construction work but shall not include—
cost of land;
any compensation paid or payable to a
worker or his kin under the Workmen’s
Compensation Act, 1923.
4. Time and manner of collection .-
(1) The cess levied under sub-section (1) of
347
section 3 of the Act shall be paid by an
employer, within thirty days of completion of
the construction project or within thirty days
of the date on which assessment of cess
payable is finalised, whichever is earlier, to
the cess collector.
(2) Notwithstanding the provisions of
sub-rule (1), where the duration of the project
or construction work exceeds one year, cess
shall be paid within thirty days of completion
of one year from the date of commencement of
work and every year thereafter at the notified
rates on the cost of construction incurred
during the relevant period.
(3) Notwithstanding the provisions of
sub-rule (1) and sub-rule (2), where the levy of
cess pertains to building and other
construction work of a Government or of a
Public Sector Undertaking, such Government
or the Public Sector Undertaking shall deduct
or cause to be deducted the cess payable at
the notified rates from the bills paid for such
works.
348
(4) Notwithstanding the provisions of
sub-rule (1) and sub-rule (2), where the
approval of a construction work by a local
authority is required, every application for
such approval shall be accompanied by a
crossed demand draft in favour of the Board
and payable at the station at which the Board
is located for an amount of cess payable at
the notified rates on the estimated cost of
construction:
Provided that if the duration of the
project is likely to exceed one year, the
demand draft may be for the amount of cess
payable on cost of construction estimated to
be incurred during one year from the date of
commencement and further payments of cess
due shall be made as per the provisions of
sub-rule (2).
(5) An employer may pay in advance an
amount of cess calculated on the basis of the
estimated cost of construction along with the
notice of commencement of work under
section 46 of the Main Act by a crossed
demand draft in favour of the Board and
349
payable at the station at which the Board is
located:
Provided that if the duration of the
project is likely to exceed one year, the
demand draft may be for the amount of cess
payable on cost of construction estimated to
be incurred during one year from the date of
such commencement and further payment of
cess due shall be made as per the provisions
of sub-rule (2).
(6) Advance cess paid under sub-rules
(3), (4) and (5), shall be adjusted in the final
assessment made by the Assessing Officer.
… … …
8. Return of overpaid cess .—(1)
Where the Assessing Officer has passed an
order of assessment and the employer
decides to withdraw from or foreclose theThe
Building and other construction workers’
Welfare Cess Rules, 19981 works or modifies
the plan of construction thereby reducing the
cost of construction undertaken or has been
forced by other circumstances to call off the
completion of the work undertaken, he may
350
seek revision of the assessment order by
making an information in Form II to the
Assessing Officer giving details of such
reduction or stoppage of work.
(2) Revision of order of assessment shall
be made by the Assessing Officer, in the
same manner as the original order, within
thirty days of receipt of such information in
Form II.
(3) Following the revision of assessment
as per sub-rule (2), the Assessing Officer
shall, wherever necessary, endorse a copy of
the revised assessment to the Board or cess
collector, as the case may be, for making the
refund of excess cess as ordered in the
revised assessment.
(4) The Board shall, within thirty days
of receipt of the endorsement from the
Assessing Officer under sub-rule (3), refund
the amount specified in the order to the
employer through a demand draft payable at
the station where the establishment is
located.
351
(5) Where the Appellate Authority has
modified the order of assessment reducing
the amount of cess, refund shall be made
within such time as may be specified in that
order.
… … …
11. Date of payment .—Date of
payment of cess shall be the date on which
the amount is deposited with the cess
collector under sub-rule (1) of rule 4, or the
date of deduction at source under sub-rule (3)
of rule 4, or the date on which the draft has
been deposited with the local authority under
sub-rule (4) of rule 4, as the case may be.”
In terms of Rule 4 which deals with time and manner of
collection of cess it clearly depicts that cess is to be paid
where duration of the project or construction work
exceeds one year within 30 days of completion of one
year from the date of commencement of the work. Sub-
rule (5) of Rule 4 directs that an employer may pay in
advance an amount of cess calculated on the basis of
352
estimated cost of construction along with the notice of
commencement of work.
45. Therefore, two directions emerge from sub-
rules (2), (4) and (5) of Rule 4. The cess levied under
sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Act is to be paid by
the employer within 30 days of completion of
construction or the project or within 30 days on which
the assessment of cess is finalized, whichever is earlier
to the Cess Collector. Sub-rule (2) begins with a non
obstante clause reading notwithstanding the provisions
of sub-rule (2) where the duration of the project exceeds
one year, the cess can be paid within one month of
completion of one year from the date of commencement
of work. Sub-rule (4) which again begins with a non-
obstante clause mandates that notwithstanding sub-
rules (1) and (2) where approval of a construction work
by a local authority is required, every application for
such approval shall be accompanied by a crossed
353
demand draft in favour of the Board. The amount of
cess payable is at the notified rates on the estimated
cost of construction.
46. Therefore, whatever sub-rules (1) and (2) have
given is taken away by sub-rule (4). At the time when
the application is submitted to the BBMP for approval it
should contain a demand draft of the amount of cess
payable at the notified rates on the estimated cost of
construction. Therefore, it is under this provision the
BBMP, being a local authority, is empowered to demand
labour cess at the notified rate. Sub-rule (4) is
accompanied with a proviso.
47. The proviso to sub-rule (4) mandates that if
the duration of the project is likely to exceed one year,
the demand draft may be for the amount of cess payable
on the cost of construction incurred during one year
from the date of commencement and payment of cess
that would fall due in terms of sub-rule (2). Therefore,
354
the proviso though permits demand of cess from the
hands of BBMP it does not mandate payment upfront in
advance at a time when application for approval is
made. Sub-rule (5) makes it directory and not
mandatory as it reads an employer may pay in advance
an amount of cess calculated on the basis of estimated
cost of construction.
48. Rule 8 deals with return of overpaid cess.
Rule 11 mandates date of payment. In terms of Rule 11
the date of payment of cess shall be the date on which
the amount is deposited in terms of the aforesaid Rules
with the local authority. In terms of the afore-narrated
provisions of the Welfare Cess Act and the Cess Rules,
the impugned demand is required to be noticed and
considered. The notice of demand in the case at hand is
dated 12.06.2020. The labour cess along with other
imposts that is demanded is Rs.2,17,047-00. Sub-
section (3) of Section 3 of the Welfare Cess Act provides
355
for deducting the cost of collection of cess not exceeding
one per cent of the amount collected by the local
authority. The contention of the petitioners in so far as
labour cess is concerned that it is demanded upfront
which is contrary to the Welfare Cess Act and the Cess
Rules as the BBMP has included the said demand in the
list of imposts for upfront payment of the entire amount
of labour cess is contrary to the Welfare Cess Act and
the Cess Rules.
49. The contention of the Government Advocate
that the petitioners have to file an appeal in so far as it
concerns labour cess is misconceived. The demand of
cess upfront by the BBMP at the time when approval is
to be given for construction of a building, though in the
first blush, looks to be in terms of the Welfare Cess Act,
the proviso to the Welfare Cess Act dilutes and makes it
directory for the employer to pay the cess in advance or
to pay the cess 30 days after completion of one year
356
from the date of commencement of work. Therefore, the
demand of upfront labour cess in the impugned order is
unenforceable against the petitioners, for it being
contrary to the Act.
50. The demand now made is undoubtedly
payable by the petitioners but on completion of one year
of the project within 30 days of such completion which
is the mandate of the Welfare Cess Act and is to be
strictly adhered to. Moreover, in the light of the fact that
Rule 7 of the Rules mandates the employer to provide
details of estimated cost of construction in Form No.I
and the Assessing Officer would pass an order of
assessment. A conjoint reading of Rules 4 and 7 makes
it unmistakably clear that the local authority may either
within 30 days of completion of the project or within 30
days from the date of assessment of cess payable is
finalized, whichever is earlier, shall pay cess to the Cess
Collector.
357
51. The justification of Government for upfront
demand of cess of one percent of the estimated cost is
on the strength of two Government orders dated 18-01-
2007 and 26-02-2007 which are issued in furtherance
of the Act and the Rules. The Government orders which
are issued in furtherance of the Act and the Rules
cannot run counter to the Act and the Rules. The
mandate of the Act or the Rules cannot be taken away
by Government orders. The offending portion of the
Government order dated 18.01.2007 reads as follows:-
“(c) Where the approval of the
construction work by local authority is
required, all local authorities mainly
Bangalore Mahanagara Palike, and all City
Corporations, Municipal Corporations and
Town Municipalities, Panchayats etc., shall
obtain estimated cost of the construction
along with building plans, which are
submitted for approval by concerned
employees i.e., owners/ contractors/builders
etc., such bodies shall collect upfront an
amount of 1% of the estimated cost furnished
358
along with building plans, and remit by way
of crossed demand draft payable in favour of
Karnataka State Building and Other
Construction Workers Welfare Board, along
with forwarding letter within 30 days in
terms of Rules 5(3) of the Building and Other
Construction Workers Welfare Cess Rules,
1998. The local bodies before remitting the
amount of cess of the board can deduct 1% of
the total amount collected for meeting their
administrative expenses.”
The said clause of the Government order is modified by
issuance of corrigendum dated 28-02-2007 which reads
as follows:-
“In order portion of the G.O.No.LD 300
LET 2006 dated xx 2007, the para No.(c) is
deleted and the following para is substituted:
(c) “Where the approval of the
construction work by local authority is
required, all local authorities mainly
Bangalore Mahanagara Palike, and all City
Corporations, Municipal Corporations and
Town Municipalities, Panchayats etc.; shall
359
obtain estimated cost of the construction
along with building plans, which are
submitted for approval by concerned
employers i.e., owners/ contractors/builders
etc.; such bodies shall collect by way of
demand draft in favour of Karnataka State
Building and Other Construction Workers
Welfare Board upfront an amount of 1% of the
estimated cost furnished along with building
plans, and remit the demand draft to the
Karnataka State Building and Other
Construction Workers Welfare Board along
with forwarding letter within 30 days in
terms of Rules 5(3) of the Cess Rules, 1998.
The Board shall give back 1% of such total
collection to the local body for the services
rendered.”
It is this Government Order that is the fly in the
ointment as a demand upfront is made by the State
through the BBMP for payment of cess. This runs
completely counter to the Act and the Rules which
empower demand of cess. The charging provisions are
360
Section 3 and Rule 3 of the Act and Rules respectively,
which no where mandate that payment of labour cess
should be paid upfront. It is the Government order
dated 28.02.2007 which generates such demand. Since
the impugned Government order runs counter to the
Act and the Rules, it is rendered unenforceable.
Therefore, the petitioners are not required to pay labour
cess upfront before construction takes place but would
not escape such payment as mandated under the Act
and as such the demand of labour cess by the BBMP at
1% being valid but the demand of it upfront is invalid.
REFUND :
52. The learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners, in particular, the learned counsel in
W.P.No.36017/2018 Ms.Nayantara would vehemently
argue that if the impugned levies are without authority
of law, the petitioners are entitled to a refund and would
place reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in
361
the case of U.P.POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD VS.
21
KANORIA AND OTHERS and in the case of SREE
DIGVIJAY CEMENTS COMPANY AND OTHERS VS.
22
UNION OF INDIA . Though in terms of the judgments
relied on by the learned counsel would at the first blush
look acceptable, the facts of the case that went into
rendering of the aforesaid judgments will have to be
considered and if considered, they are distinguishable
without much ado . Therefore, a blanket refund cannot
be the consequence in the peculiar facts of the case at
hand.
53. Holding the impugned demands to be illegal
will not preclude or be an impediment for the legislature
to bring out suitable legislation for imposition of the
said demands. This is in the light of the judgment of
the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Wireless
21
AIR 2001 SC 787
22
AIR 2003 SC 767
362
- TT Info Services Ltd. and Others V. State of
23
Karnataka and Others
| “2. The learned Single Judge though | “2. The learned Single Judge though |
|---|---|
| has accepted the contention that there is no | |
| provision to collect the permission fee and | |
| installation charges in respect of | |
| communication towers has thereafter held | |
| that the structure viz., the telecommunication | |
| tower answers the definition of ‘building’ as | |
| defined under Section 2(3) and 2(1-A) of the | |
| respective Acts. Though the demand notices | |
| were quashed, the learned Single Judge was | |
| of the view that the quantified amount as | |
| fixed by the Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara | |
| Palike is to be adopted by the other local | |
| bodies. A further direction was also | |
| issued for framing such law/rules in this | |
| regard. The petitioners claiming to be | |
| aggrieved by the decision of the learned | |
| Single Judge are before this Court in | |
| these intra-Court appeals. |
23
2012 (3) Kar.LJ 302
363
14. Further in the case of Indus Towers
Ltd. v. State of Gujarat (2010-GHJ-24-329)
relied on by the appellants, the Division
Bench of the High Court of Gujarat was
seized of an identical situation as in the case
on hand wherein there was no specific
provision for imposing tax on
telecommunication equipment, but it had been
considered as a ‘building’ and the regulations
were enforced, in fact in that case, in the
absence of provision in the Act, which is a
requirement under Article 265 of the
Constitution of India a Government resolution
had been issued in exercise of powers under
Article 162 of the Constitution of India
providing for such regulations. The validity of
the same had arisen for consideration. The
Court after adverting to all aspects of the
matter and also keeping in view the decisions
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court had quashed
the same. However, in the course of the
judgment, the Court observed that it would be
open for the legislature to make such
amendments in the Acts making provision for
bringing the technological advances within
364
the purview of the Act. We are in agreement
and subscribe to the said view, as
otherwise it would not be permissible for
the local authorities to regulate, levy
and collect taxes or fees in respect of
mobile telecommunication towers/posts
under the presently subsisting charging
section of the Acts under consideration.
15. Having arrived at the above
conclusion, the next aspect for consideration
is as to whether the learned Single Judge
was justified in the instant case in holding
that the appellants are liable to pay tax of Rs.
12,000/- p.a. per mobile tower till appropriate
Rules are framed for levying taxes on mobile
towers by adopting the Rules stated to have
been framed by the Bruhat Bangalore
Mahanagara Palike (BBMP). Though we do
not propose to express any opinion about the
validity or otherwise of the Regulations stated
to have been framed by the BBMP as the
same do not arise for consideration herein,
we are of the opinion that the course adopted
365
by the learned Single Judge is not justified in
law.
16. The decisions of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court referred supra is categorical
that the tax cannot be levied in the absence of
express provision to do so. If there is a void,
it is for the legislature to remedy the
situation. It is also the well-settled
position of law that it is not for the
Courts either to legislate or direct the
legislature to enact the law in any
particular manner. In this regard, it is
apposite to refer to the decisions rendered by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case
of State of Himachal Pradesh v. A parent of a
Student of Medical College, Shimla (AIR 1985
SC 010); S.R. Batra v. Taruna Batra
(SMI) (2007 (3) SCC 169) and Divisional
Manager, Aravali Golf Club v. Chander
Hass (2008 (1) SCC 683) relied on by the
learned senior counsel for the appellants
wherein the said position has been succinctly
stated. Hence, in the absence of the fiscal
demands being backed by law on the subject,
tills Court would strike down the same. It is
366
for the legislature to take into consideration
all aspects and enact such law as it deems fit
in its wisdom.”
(Emphasis supplied)
Therefore, in the light of the aforesaid judgment, it is for
the legislature to bring about appropriate law to
demand any kind of fee that is now demanded.
EPILOGUE :
Ergo , on an anatomy of the plethora of judgments of the
Apex Court, this Court and other constitutional Courts qua
the facts obtaining in the case at hand, the impugned
demands made by the BBMP to the extent considered
would all be unenforceable in the existing incarnation as
they are ultravires the Act. As a logical sequitur, I hold,
that the imposition of the impugned imposts is
impossible to be countenanced.
367
For the praedictus reasons, I pass the following:
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.
(c) The Circular bearing No.
ºÉ¤£ÀAiÉÆÃ
dated
/eÉ.r(G)/rJªÀiï3/¦Dgï/320/2015-16
04.09.2015 stands quashed.
(d) The Circular bearing No.
£ÀCE 36 ¨ÉªÀÄ¥Áæ 2016
dated 27.01.2017 and the Circular
(¨sÁUÀ)
bearing No . dated
ºÉ¤£ÀAiÉÆÃ/¦Dgï/1533/2016-17
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.
(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.
Sd/-
J UDGE
bkp
CT:MJ