Dinesh Gundu Rao.
Credit: DH Photo
Bengaluru: The Karnataka High Court has issued notices to the state government and the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) in response to a petition filed by Health Minister Dinesh Gundu Rao and his wife, Tabassum.
The couple is challenging a BBMP demand notice requiring them to pay Rs 41.55 lakh under 16 categories, including contributions toward lake rejuvenation, the formation of the Outer Ring Road, slum improvements and the Mass Rapid Transit System (MRTS), as a precondition for sanctioning a commercial building plan on their property in Matadahalli, RT Nagar, Bengaluru.
The petitioners have also contested the constitutional validity of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations and Certain Other Law (Amendment) Act, 2021, which was notified on January 13, 2022, arguing that it contradicts a previous high court judgment.
Rao and Tabassum own a property measuring 608.21 square meters and had applied for the building plan's approval. According to the demand notice, they are required to pay Rs 59,994 as a scrutiny fee, Rs 11,09,731 as ground rent (including 18% GST), Rs 11,96,936 as a licence fee, Rs 1,89,800 as a betterment fee for the building, Rs 6,85,810 as a betterment fee for the site, Rs 1,89,800 as a security deposit, Rs 4,37,500 for MRTS (BDA), and Rs 15,225 for lake rejuvenation, among other charges.
The petitioners argued that the high court had quashed the demand for ground rent, licence fee, scrutiny fee, security deposit and labour cess in its judgment and had ordered a refund of these illegal charges.
However, despite this ruling, the Karnataka Municipal Corporations and Certain Other Law (Amendment) Act was introduced, allegedly in an attempt to override the court’s decision.
The petition further contends that the BBMP is imposing various charges across the Bengaluru metropolitan area without clarifying which areas are affected, leading to overlaps between the BMRCL, BWSSB, BDA and BBMP.
It argues that these charges are illegal because the BBMP lacks the authority to levy fees related to MRTS, water supply and other services. The demand for these fees, the petition claims, violates Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution.
“The state has no plans for a Mass Rapid Transport System in Bengaluru. Prior to collection of any funds for the improvement scheme, the respondents have to prepare the plan for the said scheme,” the petition stated.