M/S SAI SURAKASHA PROPERTIES v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
WP/16584/2025 · 2025-06-24
Sachin Shankar Magadum
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 51007 (KAR) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 51007 (KAR) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
- 1 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23030 WP No. 16584 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO.16584 OF 2025 (LB-BMP) BETWEEN:
M/s SAI SURAKASHA PROPERTIES A PARTNERSHIP FIRM REGISTERED UNDER THE PARTNERSHIP ACT HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.36/52, 12TH MAIN, 27TH CROSS, JAYANAGAR 4TH BLOCK EAST, BANGALORE-560 011 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER SRI. V.RAMESH KUMAR S/O LATE V.CHANDRASEKHARA NAIDU AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS &PETITIONER (BY SRI. SUDHAKAR G V., ADVOCATE) AND:
1.
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THE URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT VIKAS SOUDHA, DR. B.R AMBEDKARVEEDHI, BANGALORE-560 001.
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
2.
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS AND LEGISLATION VIKASA SOUDHA, DR. B.R AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka
- 2 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23030 WP No. 16584 of 2025 BANGALORE-560 001.
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
3.
BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGAR PALIKE N.R SQUARE, BANGALORE-560002.
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER.
4.
THE JOINT DIRECTOR (TOWN PLANNING-SOUTH) BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE, N.R SQUARE, BANGALORE-560 002 &RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. H.K.KENCHEGOWDA, AGA FOR R1 & R2;
SRI. PAWAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R3 & R4)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO GRANT AN ORDER DECLARING THAT THE ENTIRE KARNATAKA MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS AND CERTAIN OTHER LAW (AMENDMENT) ACT, 2021 (KARNATAKA ACT NO. 01 OF 2022) BEARING NO.DPAL/50/SHASANA/2021, BENGALURU NOTIFIED ON 13/01/2022 (ANNEXURE-H) AS BEING ULTRA VIRES THE CONSTITUTION IN SO FAR THE PETITIONERS ARE CONCERNED AND ETC.
THIS PETITION IS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
- 3 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23030 WP No. 16584 of 2025 ORAL ORDER Petitioner, in the captioned petition has sought for following reliefs :
"i) Grant an
order declaring that the entire Karnataka Municipal Corporations and Certain Other Law (Amendment) Act, 2021 (Karnataka Act No. 01 of 2022) bearing No.DPAL/50/Shasana/2021, Bengaluru notified on 13/01/2022 (Annexure-H) as being ultra vires the Constitution in so far the Petitioners are concerned. ii) To declare that Karnataka Municipal Corporations and Certain Other Law (Amendment) Act, 2021 (Karnataka Act No. 01 of 2022) bearing No.DPAL/50/Shasana/ 2021, Bengaluru notified on 13/01/2022 (Annexure-H) is in violation/contrary to the decision of this Hon'ble Court in W.P No.4601/2020 (LB-BMP). iil) Grant an order, direction or writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the Office
Order No. HaNiNaYo/PR/461/2021-22 dated 09/03/2022 issued by Respondent No.3 as contained in (Annexure-J) in so far the Petitioners are concerned. iv) to declare that the entire Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike and Certain other Law
- 4 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23030 WP No. 16584 of 2025 (Amendment) Act, 2023 notified on 16/08/2024 vide Notification bearing No.DPAL 36 Shasana 2023, Bengaluru issued by the Respondent No.2 (Annexure-L) as being ultra vires the Constitution of India". iv) to declare that the entire Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike and Certain other Law (Amendment) Act, 2023 notified on 16/08/2024 vide Notification bearing No.DPAL 36 Shasana 2023, Bengaluru issued by the Respondent No.2 (Annexure-L) as being ultra vires the Constitution of India". v) issue a writ or order by way of certiorari quashing the demand notice dated 06/05/2025 bearing No.BBMP/Addl.Dir/JD South/0289/17- 18, issued by the Respondent No.4 (Annexure- D) for demanding in so far it is concerned to Ground rent, GST on Ground rent and Scrutiny fee as illegal, without jurisdiction and arbitrary. vi) issue a writ or order or direction by way of mandamus directing the Respondent No.3 and 4 BBMP to issue the Occupancy certificate for the residential apartment constructed on the Schedule Property without insisting the Ground rent, GST on Ground rent and Scrutiny fee; and vii) pass any such other order(s) as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity."
- 5 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23030 WP No. 16584 of 2025
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, 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
- 6 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23030 WP No. 16584 of 2025 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 8Development Plan9 containing the proposal for construction on plots measuring more than 20,000 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 8Development Plan9 in terms of the 8Note9 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 8market value9 or 8guidance value9 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,
- 7 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23030 WP No. 16584 of 2025 providing for 8Ground Rent9, is illegal and are accordingly quashed and set aside. (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 8One Time Settlement9 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 Hon9ble 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
- 8 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23030 WP No. 16584 of 2025 Planning Act, 1961, read with Rules 37-A and 37-C of the Karnataka Planning Authority Rules, 1965, are applicable 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
- 9 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23030 WP No. 16584 of 2025 the present writ petition no longer survives for adjudication independently, as it is squarely covered by the binding 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 06.05.2025 issued by respondent No.4 as per Annexure-D 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.
- 10 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23030 WP No. 16584 of 2025 (iv) Respondent- BBMP is hereby
directed to forthwith process the petitioner's 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 SMJ List No.: 2 Sl No.: 32