Latest news with #KTCPAct
Time of India
24-07-2025
- Business
- Time of India
Govt decides to regularise B-khatabuildings in Bengaluru, leaves out vacant plots
Bengaluru: The state govt has decided to regularise all existing B khata buildings and multi-storey apartment complexes in Bengaluru, provided they were constructed on unauthorised layouts, lands, or sites and registered in the BBMP records before Sept 30, 2024. However, vacant plots with B khata status have been explicitly excluded from this regularisation drive. The decision, approved by the cabinet on July 17 following a recommendation from the urban development department (UDD), aims to strike a balance, providing legal relief to lakhs of homeowners while maintaining a hard line on unapproved land developments. According to UDD, vacant lands that were converted under Section 95 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, but lack approvals under the Karnataka Town and Country Planning (KTCP) Act, 1961, will not be eligible for even a B khata. "In all such cases, the owner shall obtain relevant approvals under the KTCP Act, and thereafter may be issued an A khata from BBMP," the department stated in its note. You Can Also Check: Bengaluru AQI | Weather in Bengaluru | Bank Holidays in Bengaluru | Public Holidays in Bengaluru It also clarified that no khata—neither A nor B—would be issued for such vacant lands unless they meet planning norms under the KTCP Act and the Greater Bengaluru Governance (GBG) Act. "The landowner has the opportunity to obtain an A khata after duly complying with the provisions of the KTCP Act and the GBG Act," the note added. While denying regularisation to vacant plots, the govt has offered conditional relief to individual buyers who purchased plots carved out of unauthorised subdivisions. These buyers will be eligible for a khata only if the sale was done through a registered deed on or before Sept 30, 2024, and the site either has direct access to a public road or layout approval as a single plot. For undivided lands bearing a revenue survey number or hissa number and not converted under Section 95 of the KLR Act, the govt has stated that a khata may be issued only if the land is converted to non-agricultural use, the owner ensures road access, and layout or single plot approval is secured under the KTCP Act. The move is expected to impact over 6 lakh B khata properties across Bengaluru, many of which have long remained in legal ambiguity amid rapid urban expansion. When clarity was sought, BBMP administrator Tushar Girinath and special commissioner for revenue Munish Moudgil did not respond to queries from TOI. —- Blurb Vacant lands that were converted under Section 95 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, but lack approvals under the Karnataka Town and Country Planning (KTCP) Act, 1961, will not be eligible for even a B khata
Time of India
13-06-2025
- Business
- Time of India
Karnataka HC strikes down amendment laws on civic body's retrospective levies
BENGALURU : In a major setback for the state govt and more particularly BBMP , the high court has struck down the Karnataka Municipal Corporations and Certain Other Law (Amendment) Acts of 2021 and 2023. These acts aimed to validate previous collections of various fees from Bengaluru residents and builders. The 2021 Amendment Act was enacted to override the high court's earlier decision in the Sundaram Shetty case rendered in 2021, which declared the practice of linking levies to guidance value as illegal. While litigation against the legislation was under way, the govt promulgated a second amendment in Aug 2023, introducing further definitions of "ground rent," "guidance value," and "scrutiny fee," amending Section 240A of the BBMP Act and attempting once again to validate past levies retrospectively. The petitioners, comprising developers and property owners, challenged the levies imposed by BBMP and BDA during the layout and building approval process. These included scrutiny fees, ground rent, licence fees, security deposits, lake rejuvenation fees, and compound wall charges under the BBMP Act 2020, and water supply cess, slum cess, surcharges for mass rapid transit and ring road, administrative charges, and betterment charges under the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961 (KTCP Act). In his order, Justice R Devdas noted that after a coordinate bench ruling in Oct 2021 (Sundaram Shetty case) declared these levies unenforceable, the authorities had an opportunity to reconsider the rates. However, they maintained similar rates through govt circulars without proper justification or empirical data collection, as suggested in that order. Development plan The judge also declared the provisions contained in Section 18A of KTCP Act (collection of cess and surcharge by a planning authority), read with rules 37-A and 37-C of Karnataka Planning Authority Rules, 1965, are applicable only in respect of a development plan for construction on plots measuring over 20,000sqm and not for plots measuring less than that. If a fee was earlier collected for a change of land use or while approving a layout plan, a fee shall not be collected for a subsequent development plan, the judge added. While the govt and BBMP retain the right to establish new standards based on empirical data, Justice Devdas also suggested implementing a one-time settlement scheme to resolve the situation. The court highlighted that the fee collection was intended for large construction projects but was being applied indiscriminately. Citizens began objecting after a Sept 4, 2015, circular revised ground rents and linked them to guidance values. The provision made in clause 3.8 of the building by-laws permitting a person to stock building materials on public land/roads/pavements would be directly in the teeth of the statutory provision contained in Section 229(2) of the BBMP Act, 2020, which empowers the zonal commissioner to summarily evict any encroachment, either temporary or permanent, caused on a public street including footpaths, the judge pointed out while emphasising that public safety should not be compromised, particularly regarding road and pavement maintenance. The court noted that the fees should correspond to the services provided by BBMP, following the principle of quid pro quo. The petitioners demonstrated through BBMP's financial records that relevant factors weren't considered when determining fees. The court agreed that service charges should be uniform across localities and vary only based on plot size and construction extent, rather than property's guidance market values.
Time of India
12-06-2025
- Business
- Time of India
Karnataka high court strikes down amendment laws on civic body's retrospective levies
Bengaluru: In a major setback for the state govt and more particularly BBMP, the high court has struck down the Karnataka Municipal Corporations and Certain Other Law (Amendment) Acts of 2021 and 2023. These acts aimed to validate previous collections of various fees from Bengaluru residents and builders. The 2021 Amendment Act was enacted to override the high court's earlier decision in the Sundaram Shetty case rendered in 2021, which declared the practice of linking levies to guidance value as illegal. While litigation against the legislation was under way, the govt promulgated a second amendment in Aug 2023, introducing further definitions of "ground rent," "guidance value," and "scrutiny fee," amending Section 240A of the BBMP Act and attempting once again to validate past levies retrospectively. The petitioners, comprising developers and property owners, challenged the levies imposed by BBMP and BDA during the layout and building approval process. These included scrutiny fees, ground rent, licence fees, security deposits, lake rejuvenation fees, and compound wall charges under the BBMP Act 2020, and water supply cess, slum cess, surcharges for mass rapid transit and ring road, administrative charges, and betterment charges under the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961 (KTCP Act). by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Accounting Automation Software Might Help You To Earn More Accounting Automation Software | Search ads Undo In his order, Justice R Devdas noted that after a coordinate bench ruling in Oct 2021 (Sundaram Shetty case) declared these levies unenforceable, the authorities had an opportunity to reconsider the rates. However, they maintained similar rates through govt circulars without proper justification or empirical data collection, as suggested in that order. Development plan The judge also declared the provisions contained in Section 18A of KTCP Act (collection of cess and surcharge by a planning authority), read with rules 37-A and 37-C of Karnataka Planning Authority Rules, 1965, are applicable only in respect of a development plan for construction on plots measuring over 20,000sqm and not for plots measuring less than that. If a fee was earlier collected for a change of land use or while approving a layout plan, a fee shall not be collected for a subsequent development plan, the judge added. While the govt and BBMP retain the right to establish new standards based on empirical data, Justice Devdas also suggested implementing a one-time settlement scheme to resolve the situation. The court highlighted that the fee collection was intended for large construction projects but was being applied indiscriminately. Citizens began objecting after a Sept 4, 2015, circular revised ground rents and linked them to guidance values. The provision made in clause 3.8 of the building by-laws permitting a person to stock building materials on public land/roads/pavements would be directly in the teeth of the statutory provision contained in Section 229(2) of the BBMP Act, 2020, which empowers the zonal commissioner to summarily evict any encroachment, either temporary or permanent, caused on a public street including footpaths, the judge pointed out while emphasising that public safety should not be compromised, particularly regarding road and pavement maintenance. The court noted that the fees should correspond to the services provided by BBMP, following the principle of quid pro quo. The petitioners demonstrated through BBMP's financial records that relevant factors weren't considered when determining fees. The court agreed that service charges should be uniform across localities and vary only based on plot size and construction extent, rather than property's guidance market values. Follow more information on Air India plane crash in Ahmedabad here . Get real-time live updates on rescue operations and check full list of passengers onboard AI 171 .
