- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21745 WP No. 2220 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO.2220 OF 2023 (LB-BMP) BETWEEN: 1. M/S. SOBHA LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS SOBHA DEVELOPERS LIMITED) A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANES ACT, 1956 AND HAVING ITS REGISTERED AND CORPORATE OFFICE AT SARJAPUR-MARTHAHALLI OUTER RING ROAD (ORR) DEVERABESANAHALLI, BELANDUR POST BANGALORE-560103 REP. BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY MR. PRASAD M S ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER-LEGAL DEPARTMENT. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. MADHUKAR M DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS AND LEGISLATION VIDHANA SOUDHA DR B R AMBEDKAR VEEDHI Digitally signed by H K HEMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21745 WP No. 2220 of 2023 BANGALORE - 560001. 2. DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY 4TH FLOOR, VIKAS SOUDHA DR. B R AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE-560001. 3. BRUHATH BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE N R SQUARE, HUDSON CIRCLE BENGALURU - 560001 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF COMMISSIONER. 4. THE JOINT DIRECTOR (TOWN PLANNING-NORTH), BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, N.R. SQUARE, HUDSON CIRCLE, BENGALURU-560002. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. H.K. KENCHEGOWDA, AGA FOR R.1 & R.2; SRI B.L. SANJEEV, ADVOCATE FOR R.3 & R.4.) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DECLARE THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTIONS 299A AND 299C INSERTED INTO THE KARNATAKA MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS ACT, 1976 (KARNATAKA ACT NO.14 OF 1977) WITH EFFECT FROM 4TH SEPTEMBER 2015 AND ALSO SECTIONS 240A AND 240C INSERTED INTO THE BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE 2020 (KARNATAKA ACT NO.53 OF 2020) WITH EFFECT FROM 11-01-2021 AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL, MANIFESTLY - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21745 WP No. 2220 of 2023 ARBITRARY, UNREASONABLE, UNENFORCEABLE, AN UNREASONABLE RESTRICTION ON RIGHT TO PROPERTY BEING EXPROPRIATARY, AN INFRINGEMENT OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO PROPERTY UNDER ARTICLE 300A AND FAILING THE TEST OF ARTICLE 14 OF THE CONSTITUTION, ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL ORDER The captioned petition is filed seeking for the following reliefs: "Wherefore, the Petitioner most respectfully prays that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to :- 1. DECLARE that the provisions of Sections 299A and 299C inserted into the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 (Karnataka Act No.14 of 1977) with effect from 4th September 2015 and also Sections 240A and 240C inserted into the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike 2020 (Karnataka Act No.53 of 2020) with effect from 11-01-2021 a s unconstitutional, manifestly arbitrary, unreasonable, unenforceable, an unreasonable restriction on right to property being expropriatary, an infringement of - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21745 WP No. 2220 of 2023 constitutional right to property under Article 300A and failing the test of Article 14 of the Constitution. 2. Quash demand notice bearing No. BBMP/Addl. Dir/ JDNORTH/LP/0455/2014-15 dated 13-12-2022 under Annexure - B to the writ petition. 3. Direct the 3rd respondent by issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the 3rd respondent to consider the representation No. SL/LGL/514/2021 dated 24-09-2021 under Annexure-E to the writ petition and refund to the petitioner the sum of Rs.21,44,47,000/- paid by the petitioner pursuant to its Order dated 04.08.2021 rendered by this Hon'ble Court in Writ Petition No.4601 of 2020 (LB- BMP) and connected matters. 4. Grant such other and further relief/s as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case in the interests of justice and equity." 2. It is brought to the notice of this Court that across the Bar, the issue is dealt by the Co-ordinate Bench in the reported judgment in W.P.No.23086/2022 and connected matters. The Co-ordinate Bench, while deciding the issue, has set-aside the Karnataka Municipal Corporations and Certain Other Law (Amendment) Act, - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21745 WP No. 2220 of 2023 2021 (Karnataka Act No.01 of 2022) and the Karnataka Municipal Corporations and Certain Other Law (Amendment) Act, 2023, (Karnataka Act No.37 of 2024). Therefore, this Court deems it fit to cull out the operative portion of the order, which reads as under; "ORDER (i) The writ petitions are partly allowed. (ii) The Karnataka Municipal Corporations and Certain Other Law (Amendment) Act, 2021 (Karnataka Act No.01 of 2022), is hereby quashed and set aside. (iii) The Karnataka Municipal Corporations and Certain Other Law (Amendment) Act, 2023, (Karnataka Act No.37 of 2024), is hereby quashed and set aside. (iv) It is hereby declared that the provisions contained 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 ‘Development Plan’ containing the proposal for construction on plots measuring more than 20,000 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21745 WP No. 2220 of 2023 square meters in extent and not in respect of plots measuring less than 20,000 square meters. (v) It is hereby declared that if fee has been earlier collected for change of land use or while approving a layout plan, fee shall not be collected for subsequent ‘Development Plan’ in terms of the ‘Note’ found below TABLE I of Rule 37-A of the Karnataka Planning Authority Rules, 1965. (vi) It is hereby declared that the linking of the fee leviable under Rule 37-A of the Karnataka Planning Authority Rules, 1965, to the ‘market value’ or ‘guidance value’ as determined under Section 45-B of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957, is illegal. However, liberty is reserved to the respondent-State Government and the BBMP to re- fix a standard after collecting empherical data. (vii) Consequently, all the impugned Circulars which seek to give effect to the Rules 37-A and 37- C of the Karnataka Planning Authority Rules, 1965, are hereby quashed and set aside. (viii) It is hereby declared that Clause 3.8 of the Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Building Bye- laws, 2003, providing for ‘Ground Rent’, is illegal and are accordingly quashed and set aside. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21745 WP No. 2220 of 2023 (ix) Consequently, all the impugned Demand Notices raised by the respondent-BBMP, in respect of the writ petitioners herein are also quashed and set aside. It would be advisable that the BBMP may come out with a scheme for ‘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." 3. In the present writ petition, the core issue raised stands substantially covered and decided by the authoritative pronouncement of the coordinate bench, wherein the writ petitions were partly allowed and several consequential reliefs were granted. The Hon’ble Court, in unequivocal terms, quashed and set aside the Karnataka Municipal Corporations and Certain Other Law (Amendment) Acts of 2021 and 2023 (Karnataka Act Nos.01 of 2022 and 37 of 2024 respectively). 4. The Court further declared that the provisions under 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 - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21745 WP No. 2220 of 2023 only to development proposals concerning plots exceeding 20,000 square meters, and not to smaller plots. Importantly, it was also held that if a fee has been previously collected for change of land use or approval of layout plan, no further fee shall be levied for subsequent development plans, in view of the explanatory 'Note' to Table I of Rule 37-A. 5. The Court declared illegal the linkage of such levies to market or guidance value under Section 45-B of the Karnataka Stamp Act, and consequently, quashed all Circulars and demand notices issued to give effect to such unlawful interpretations. Clause 3.8 of the BBMP Building Bye-laws, 2003, imposing 'Ground Rent', was also struck down. 6. In view of these comprehensive declarations and findings, it is submitted that the controversy raised in the present writ petition no longer survives for adjudication independently, as it is squarely covered by the binding - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21745 WP No. 2220 of 2023 judgment of the coordinate bench. In the light of the law laid down in the reported judgment substantially covering the issue, which is raised in the captioned writ petition, the writ petition is liable to be allowed strictly aligning to the operative portion of the said writ petition. 7. In view of the above, this Court proceeds to pass the following; ORDER (i) The writ petition is allowed. (ii) The impugned demand notice dated 13.12.2022 issued by respondent No.4 as per Annexure-B is hereby set-aside. (iii) Respondent - BBMP is hereby directed to issue Occupancy Certificate in accordance with law in compliance of the construction strictly adhering to the approved building plan. (iv) Respondent- BBMP is hereby directed to forthwith process the petitioner's - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21745 WP No. 2220 of 2023 application seeking occupancy certificate, strictly in accordance with law. (v) It is made clear that the issuance of occupancy certificate shall not be withheld merely on the ground that the BBMP is contemplating to file an appeal against the reported judgment. (vi) If occupancy certificate is issued, the same shall be subjected to the outcome of any appeal that may be filed by the BBMP against the judgment. Pending applications, if any, are also disposed off. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE VMB List No.: 2 Sl No.: 39