- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27232 WP No. 12858 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO.12858 OF 2025 (LB-BMP) BETWEEN: M/S. SOBHA LIMITED A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956, AND HAVING ITS REGISTERED AND CORPORATE OFFICE AT, SARJAPUR- MARTHAHALLI OUTER RING ROAD (ORR), DEVERABESANAHALLI, BELLANDUR POST, BENGALURU-560 103. REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY, MR. PRASAD M.S. DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER -LEGAL DEPARTMENT. …PETITIONER (BY SRI MADHUKAR M.D., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS AND LEGISLATION, VIDHANA SOUDHA, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU - 560 001. REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY. 2. DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, 4TH FLOOR, VIKASA SOUDHA, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU - 560 001. REPRESENTED BY ITS Digitally signed by MOUNESHWARAPPA NAGARATHNA Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27232 WP No. 12858 of 2025 PRINCIPAL SECRETARY. 3. BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, N.R. SQUARE, HUDSON CIRCLE, BENGALURU-560 001. REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF COMMISSIONER. 4. JOINT DIRECTOR, TOWN PLANNING (NORTH), BBMP, HUDSON CIRCLE, BENGALURU-560 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI H.K. KENCHEGOWDA, AGA FOR R-1 AND R-2; SRI K.B. MONESH KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R-3 AND R-4) * * * THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DECLARE THAT THE BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE AND CERTAIN LAW (AMENDMENT) ACT, 2023 (KARNATAKA ACT 37 OF 2024) PUBLISHED AS PER ORDER AND IN THE NAME OF THE GOVERNOR OF KARNATAKA ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.1 IN NOTIFICATION BEARING NO.DPAL 36 SHASANA 2023, BENGALURU DATED 16.08.2024 (ANNEXURE-A) TO THIS WRIT PETITION AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL, MANIFESTLY ARBITRARY, UNREASONABLE, UNENFORCEABLE AND UNREASONABLE RESTRICTION ON RIGHT TO PROPERTY BEING EXPROPRIATORY AND INFRINGEMENT OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO PROPERTY UNDER ARTICLE 300A OF THE CONSTITUTION AND FAILING THE TEST OF ARTICLE 14 OF THE CONSTITUTION. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27232 WP No. 12858 of 2025 THIS WRIT 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 the following reliefs: i) Issue Writ of Certiorari or Declare that the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike and Certain Law (Amendment) Act, 2023 (Karnataka Act 37 of 2024) published as per order and in the name of the Governor of Karnataka issued by Respondent No.1 in Notification bearing No.DPAL 36 Shasana 2023, Bengaluru dated 16.08.2024 (Annexure-A) to this writ petition as unconstitutional, manifestly arbitrary, unreasonable, unenforceable and unreasonable restriction on right to property being expropriatory and infringement of constitutional right to property under Article 300A of the Constitution and failing the test of Article 14 of the Constitution. ii). Issue Writ of Certiorari or Declare that the provisions of Sections 299A and 299C inserted into the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 (Karnataka Act No.14 of - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27232 WP No. 12858 of 2025 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 by inserted under Karnataka Municipal Corporations and Certain Other Law (Amendment) Act, 2021 (Karnataka Act No.1 of 2022) published as per order and in the name of the Governor of Karnataka issued by Respondent No.1 in Notification bearing No.DPAL 50 Shasana 2021, dated 13.01.2022 {Annexure-B} Bengaluru unconstitutional, manifestly arbitrary, as 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. iii). Issue Writ of Certiorari or Quash demand notice bearing No.BBMP/Addl.Dir/JDNORTH/0455/2014-15 dated 23.04.2025 under Annexure-C to the writ petition, issued by the Respondent No.4. iv). Issue writ of Mandamus directing the Respondent No.3 and 4 issue occupancy certificate without insistence of fees specified at demand notice bearing No.BBMP/Addl. Dir/JD No.BBMP/Addl.Dir/JDNORTH/0455/2014-15 dated - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27232 WP No. 12858 of 2025 23.04.2025 issued by the Respondent No.4 (Annexure- C). v). 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, 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. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27232 WP No. 12858 of 2025 (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 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 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27232 WP No. 12858 of 2025 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. (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 - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27232 WP No. 12858 of 2025 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 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 - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27232 WP No. 12858 of 2025 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 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 23.04.2025 issued by respondent No.4 as per Annexure-C is hereby set-aside. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27232 WP No. 12858 of 2025 (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 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 the 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 HDK List No.: 2 Sl No.: 47