Latest news with #JusticeCMJoshi
New Indian Express
5 days ago
- Business
- New Indian Express
Karnataka High Court stays single judge order on differential property fee
BENGALURU: The Karnataka High Court on Wednesday stayed the order passed by the single judge, who set aside the amendment to the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Act to permit levy of fees for plan sanction, issuance of completion and occupancy certificates and ground rent, based on the guidance value or market value of the properties. However, the division bench clarified that the amount already collected on those heads has to be refunded, if the BBMP fails in its appeal filed before the court against the single judge's order. A division bench of Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice CM Joshi passed the interim order after hearing the appeal filed by the BBMP questioning the single judge's order dated June 5. The single judge passed the order while disposing of the petitions filed by Sapthagiri Shelters and several individual property owners and land developers. The single judge observed that a uniform rate can be collected depending upon the size of the plot and the extent of constructions and services related to sanction of plan for building construction rendered by the BBMP has nothing to do with the market value of the property or any logic in linking rates with the guidance value of the properties in different areas, notified by the government under the Karnataka Stamp Act for collection of stamp duty. Declaring that the linking of the fee, leviable under Rule 37-A of the Karnataka Planning Authority Rules, 1965, to the market or guidance value for development of building or land or sanction for sub-division of plot or layout of Private Street under the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Authority Act, is illegal, the single judge had given liberty to the State Government and the BBMP to refix a standard fee after collecting empirical data.
New Indian Express
5 days ago
- Business
- New Indian Express
Karnataka High Court sets aside single judge order on differential property fee
BENGALURU: The Karnataka High Court on Wednesday stayed the order passed by the single judge, who set aside the amendment to the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Act to permit levy of fees for plan sanction, issuance of completion and occupancy certificates and ground rent, based on the guidance value or market value of the properties. However, the division bench clarified that the amount already collected on those heads has to be refunded, if the BBMP fails in its appeal filed before the court against the single judge's order. A division bench of Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice CM Joshi passed the interim order after hearing the appeal filed by the BBMP questioning the single judge's order dated June 5. The single judge passed the order while disposing of the petitions filed by Sapthagiri Shelters and several individual property owners and land developers. The single judge observed that a uniform rate can be collected depending upon the size of the plot and the extent of constructions and services related to sanction of plan for building construction rendered by the BBMP has nothing to do with the market value of the property or any logic in linking rates with the guidance value of the properties in different areas, notified by the government under the Karnataka Stamp Act for collection of stamp duty. Declaring that the linking of the fee, leviable under Rule 37-A of the Karnataka Planning Authority Rules, 1965, to the market or guidance value for development of building or land or sanction for sub-division of plot or layout of Private Street under the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Authority Act, is illegal, the single judge had given liberty to the State Government and the BBMP to refix a standard fee after collecting empirical data.
Time of India
5 days ago
- Politics
- Time of India
Karnataka high court declines to issue directions on dropping of Betta Halasuru Metro station in Bengaluru
Bengaluru: The Karnataka high court Wednesday declined to issue any direction regarding a public interest litigation (PIL) concerning the dropping of Betta Halasuru Cross Metro station along the Krishnarajapuram - Kempegowda International Airport route. The question of whether the station is to be constructed at a particular place is not amenable to judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The decision on the manner in which a Metro line is to be constructed lies solely in the reserve of the concerned authority, a division bench comprising Chief Justice Vibhu Bhakru and Justice CM Joshi observed in their order. "We accordingly dispose of this petition by directing BMRCL to consider the representations filed by the petitioners," the bench further observed while disposing of the PIL filed by BG Nanjundappa and four others. You Can Also Check: Bengaluru AQI | Weather in Bengaluru | Bank Holidays in Bengaluru | Public Holidays in Bengaluru The petitioners claimed they submitted a series of representations in April-May 2025 to the MD of BMRCL, deputy commissioner of Bengaluru urban district, chief minister, and revenue minister, but no action was taken over the same. "Metro rail is constructed mainly for providing a speedy and convenient travel facility to the general public and reducing traffic. By dropping the proposed station at Betta Halasuru, the authorities are putting to inconvenience the people of about 20 villages and about 2 lakh people every day. Students, working-class people, and businessmen will have to use their own vehicles as there will be no Metro stations for about 8km," the petitioners stated in their PIL.
Time of India
6 days ago
- Politics
- Time of India
High court orders notice to Karnataka government on Greater Bengaluru validity
Bengaluru: The high court on Monday ordered issuance of notice to the state govt, BBMP, and State Election Commission on a PIL petition challenging the constitutional validity of Greater Bengaluru Governance Act, 2024. A division bench comprising Chief Justice Vibhu Bhakru and Justice CM Joshi directed the respondents to submit responses by the next date of hearing. Appearing for petitioners, senior advocate MB Nargund submitted that elections to BBMP were last held in August 2015. According to him, the Greater Bengaluru Governance Authority violates the 74th amendment to the Constitution on strengthening municipal bodies. The petitioners cited the Supreme Court's decision in the Kishan Singh Tomar case, where it specified that State Election Commissions are required to conduct time-bound polls. You Can Also Check: Bengaluru AQI | Weather in Bengaluru | Bank Holidays in Bengaluru | Public Holidays in Bengaluru The PIL was jointly filed by film director TS Nagabharana, former BBMP corporator G Manjunatha Raju and GS Renuka Prasad, chairman of Shanthinagar Residents' Welfare Association. The Greater Bengaluru Authority, created through an Act, is an apparatus which will enable the state govt "to intrude into" the local govt's administration and functioning "without holding elections", the petitioners said, in a reference to the non-conduct of elections to the BBMP for the past five years. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like ACE Nest: Book with ₹5 Lacs – Studio & 1 BHK Near YEIDA Ace Noida Book Now Undo The petitioners contended that the authority's establishment is unconstitutional as its functions are almost the same as a municipality's. "Further, Section 15 of the Act confers the responsibility of formulation and execution of major projects, and for that purpose, it can even borrow money as per Section 23 of the Act," the petitioners said. The petitioners stated that the Greater Bengaluru Authority is not a municipality or municipal corporation as per Article 243Q of the Constitution of India. Hence, this takes away the principle of decentralisation as enshrined in the constitutional amendment. "Under the Constitution, the Metropolitan Planning Committee will prepare a draft development plan for the metropolitan area and forward the plan to the state govt. As the CM himself is the head of Greater Bengaluru Authority and the Authority is responsible for planning, the separation of roles is completely removed by the Act," the petitioners said.
Time of India
14-07-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
Karnataka high court orders notice over footpath encroachments
Bengaluru: The high court Monday ordered notice to the govt, Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) and police in response to a PIL seeking to ensure the city's roads and footpaths are maintained properly without any obstructions and in compliance with requirements of Persons With Disability (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 2016. A division bench of acting Chief Justice V Kameshwar Rao and Justice CM Joshi directed them to submit their responses to the PIL filed by Letzkit Foundation, a Bengaluru-based NGO. The petitioner highlighted the kinds of encroachment visible across the city — fencing of footpaths to raise gardens, putting up barricades, placing large pots with plants on footpaths, extension of business premises, and construction of religious places on pavements. Additionally, parking of vehicles, storing of construction materials, construction of public toilets, transformers, and drinking water facilities on footpaths were also mentioned. According to the petitioner, BBMP has a statutory duty to ensure roads and footpaths are well maintained. "However, the factual position is the reverse of it, and that has remained the same notwithstanding directions issued by the court in earlier proceedings," the petitioner stated. You Can Also Check: Bengaluru AQI | Weather in Bengaluru | Bank Holidays in Bengaluru | Public Holidays in Bengaluru
