Latest news with #KarnatakaTownandCountryPlanningAct
Hans India
7 days ago
- Politics
- Hans India
Illegal layouts will be demolished, warns Urban Development Minister
Bengaluru: The government has taken a firm stance against illegal settlements cropping up in ur-ban areas across the state. Urban Development Minister B.S. Suresh issued a stern warning that unauthorised colonies and illegal constructions will be swiftly and deci-sively demolished. He emphasised that officials and staff members who fail to take ap-propriate action against such settlements will face strict disciplinary measures, includ-ing fines, suspension, or even dismissal from service. The minister's remarks came during a Legislative Council session, responding to a query raised by member C.N. Manjegowda under Rule 330 regarding the proliferation of illegal settlements. Minister Suresh clarified that any colony or housing development constructed without obtaining the necessary design approvals and permissions is deemed illegal under Karnataka law. These unauthorized settlements will be barred from property registration, meaning residents cannot obtain legal ownership docu-ments or 'pattas' for their houses. Moreover, the government will not grant building permits for further construction in these areas. To strengthen enforcement, the government is empowering authorities under Section 17(4) of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1960. This provision gives offi-cials sweeping powers to issue notices to stop illegal construction activities and take action against violators. Those officials who neglect to perform their duties in prevent-ing unauthorized developments will themselves be penalized, ensuring accountability at every level of governance. Addressing long-term housing concerns, Minister Suresh also outlined plans to allo-cate land in urban areas by reserving 50 per cent for landowners and 50 per cent for housing development, aiming to provide legal and planned accommodation for resi-dents currently living in illegal settlements. Additionally, the government is considering issuing electronic property titles (e-pattas), following the Bengaluru model. Consultations with the law department are underway to finalize this initiative, which is expected to streamline land record management and provide secure ownership rights to residents. This comprehensive approach reflects the state's commitment to sustainable urban development and legal housing solutions.
New Indian Express
18-07-2025
- Business
- New Indian Express
Karnataka Cabinet nod for regularisation of B-Khata properties under GBA
BENGALURU: Bringing much relief to harried property owners, the State Cabinet has given the go-ahead for regularisation of B-Khata properties that comes under Greater Bengaluru Authority (GBA) and that were issued before September 2024. Law Minister HK Patil said the decision has been taken to bring discipline in controlling the illegal and uncontrolled building and layouts. He said a detailed order will be issued by the government on the parameters. According to sources, owners of B-Khata properties will get certificates which they were deprived and this is expected to give some legal sanctity, where they can sell properties, avail loan from bank and even mortgage. 'B-Khatas needs to be regulated & controlled' Speaking after the Cabinet meeting, Patil said there will be certain parameters to avail A- Khata. 'To avail B-Khata, there will certain parameters too. While A-Khata will be a perfect document, B-Khata certificates will be issued for properties with some lacunae, but with some exemption,' he said. He said this is also applicable to revenue sites too. A detailed order will be issued immediately. The note also specifies the unauthorised construction and unplanned development has led to issue of lakhs of B-Khatas which needs to be regulated and controlled. 'There is a need to bring B-Khata properties into the control and regulation of Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act. The Greater Bengaluru Governance Act prohibits issuance of B-Khata for unauthorised properties created or constructed after September 30, 2024. The concept of B-Khata was introduced in 2009 and therefore all Khatas issued before 2009 were A-Khata or proper khata,' it stated. Govt to withdraw de-notification of land Minister Patil said the Cabinet has decided to withdraw de-notification of land in 29 cases. The land was acquired by Bengaluru Development Authority and notification was issued by the government for the same. After the final notification, there is no provision to scrap or drop it. But some officials de-notified and action will be taken against them, he said.
New Indian Express
13-06-2025
- Business
- New Indian Express
Karnataka HC scraps law linking fees to market, guidance value in Bengaluru
BENGALURU: In a big relief to property owners, the Karnataka High Court set aside the amendment to impose ground rent, licence fee, building licence fee, scrutiny fee etc., based on market value or guidance value of properties in Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) limits. Allowing partly over 500 writ petitions filed by various persons, including developers and builders, questioning the legality of the amendment, Justice R Devdas passed the order. 'Surely, the impugned levy and imposts which are on account of services to be rendered by BBMP in the present context, have nothing to do with the market value of properties. There is no rational nexus between the rates and linking them to guidance value. Therefore, this court is of the considered opinion that linking the impugned levy and imposts to guidance value cannot be sustained,' the judge observed. 'Cannot impose ground rent' Giving an example of how the levy by BBMP is illegal, counsel for the petitioners submitted that BBMP cannot impose 'ground rent' on public property if the road or pavement are not utilised to store construction material. Declaring as illegal linking the fee leviable under Rule 37-A of the Karnataka Planning Authority Rules, 1965, to 'market value' or 'guidance value', as determined under Section 45-B of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957, the court, however, reserved liberty before the state government and BBMP to 'refix a standard fee after collecting empirical data...' 'Consequently, all the impugned demand notices raised by BBMP in respect of the writ petitioners are also quashed and set aside. It would be advisable that BBMP come out with a scheme for a 'one-time settlement' and settle the levy, and collect the fee generally acceptable to the citizens of Bengaluru. This would also augment the present situation,' the court observed. Also quashing the Karnataka Municipal Corporations and Certain Other Law (Amendment), 2021, which came into effect in 2022, and another amendment which came into effect in 2024, the court declared that provisions in Section 18-A of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961, read with Rules 37-A and 37-C of the Karnataka Planning Authority Rules, 1965, are applicable only in respect of the 'development plan' for construction on plots measuring more than 20,000sqm, and not smaller plots. The court made it clear that if the fee has been earlier collected for change of land use, or while approving a layout plan, it should not be collected for any subsequent development plan. It may be noted that in 2021, a single judge had quashed the laws and directed the state to levy fees in accordance with the law. However, the state and BBMP did not take the findings of the court into account, but made amendments to laws which forced the petitioners to approach the high court. Counsel for the petitioners argued that since BBMP has collected Rs 2,362 crore under various fee heads, and refund would incur a financial burden on the BBMP if findings of the 2021 judgment are taken into account, hence the state government should proceed to swiftly amend the laws.
India Today
26-05-2025
- Business
- India Today
Supreme Court to hear Karnataka's plea against order to pay Mysuru royal family
The Supreme Court of India on Monday agreed to list for hearing a plea filed by the Karnataka government challenging the grant of Transferable Development Rights (TDR) certificates to the legal heirs of the erstwhile Mysore royal family. The dispute pertains to the acquisition of 15 acres of land at the Bangalore Palace certificates are typically issued to compensate landowners who relinquish land for public purposes such as infrastructure projects, allowing them development rights on another parcel of reported by PTI, a bench comprising Chief Justice BR Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih initially questioned senior advocate Kapil Sibal, who appeared for the state government, on how it could seek a review of an order passed by a coordinate bench. On May 22, another bench comprising Justices MM Sundresh and Aravind Kumar had directed the Karnataka government, in a contempt proceeding, to issue TDR certificates worth Rs 3,011 crore to the royal heirs. In response, Sibal argued that the provision for TDR, introduced through a 2004 amendment to the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, could not be applied retrospectively to land that had been acquired under the Bangalore Palace (Acquisition and Transfer) Act of contended that the acquisition took place before the legal provision for TDR existed, and that compensation had already been fixed under the 1996 Act. 'This acquisition occurred under a 1996 law, and compensation of Rs 11 crore was fixed. The concept of TDR didn't exist at that time. Section 14B, which permits TDR, was introduced only in 2004, and applies only where landowners voluntarily surrender their land and not where the State acquires it compulsorily,' he matter has a long legal history. In 1997, the royal family challenged the validity of the 1996 Act before the Supreme Court, and that petition remains pending. Meanwhile, the state's move to develop a road on a section of the palace grounds led to further litigation, eventually culminating in the contempt told the bench that the contempt judgment had overlooked legal objections based on Section 14B. 'You cannot amend a final judgment or introduce new rights via a contempt proceeding,' he bench expressed doubt over whether it could 'sit in appeal' over an order passed by another bench of the same court. However, Sibal clarified that the state was not attempting to overturn the earlier order but was merely seeking consideration of its legal concerns within the context of the ongoing appeal. IN THIS STORY#Karnataka
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
26-05-2025
- Business
- Business Standard
SC to hear Karnataka's plea against TDR grant to royal family heirs
The Supreme Court agreed to list for hearing on Tuesday a plea of the Karnataka government challenging grant of Transferable Development Rights (TDR) certificates to the legal heirs of the erstwhile Mysore royal family in connection with the acquisition of 15 acres of Bangalore Palace Grounds. Initially, a bench comprising Chief Justice B R Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih asked senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for the state government, as to how it can review the order passed by another bench. On May 22, another bench comprising Justices MM Sundresh and Aravind Kumar had directed the Karnataka government to issue TDR certificates worth Rs 3,011 crore to the royal heirs in a contempt proceeding. However, the senior lawyer said the TDR provision, introduced through a 2004 amendment to the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, cannot be applied retrospectively to land acquired in 1996 under the Bangalore Palace (Acquisition and Transfer) Act. He said the 15 acres were acquired before the TDR provision existed, and that any compensation was already settled under the original Act. This acquisition occurred under a 1996 law, and compensation of Rs 11 crore was fixed. The concept of TDR didn't exist at that time. Section 14B, which permits TDR, was introduced only in 2004, and applies only where landowners voluntarily surrender their land and not where the State acquires it compulsorily, he said. The dispute dates back to 1997, when the royal family challenged the validity of the 1996 Act before the top court and the plea is still pending. Meanwhile, the state government sought to develop a road on a portion of the palace grounds, which triggered a series of litigations and ultimately led to the contempt petitions. The senior lawyer raised concerns about the contempt judgment, arguing that the bench failed to address his legal objections under Section 14B. You cannot amend a final judgment or introduce new rights via a contempt proceeding, he said. The bench questioned whether the current bench could sit in appeal over the order passed by a coordinate bench. Sibal clarified that the state government was not seeking to overturn the earlier order, but only to ensure that its legal concerns are properly addressed within the framework of the pending appeal. TDR certificates are a mechanism used in land acquisition to compensate landowners when their property is taken for public projects like road widening or infrastructure development.
