- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22668 WP No. 21991 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO.21991 OF 2024 (LB-BMP) BETWEEN: M/S. SOBHA LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS SOBHA DEVELOPERS LIMITED) A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 AND HAVING ITS OFFICE AT SARJAPUR-MARTHAHALLI OUTER RING ROAD (ORR) DEVERABESANAHALLI, BELLANDUR POST BENGALURU-560 103 REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY MR. PRASAD M.S. ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER. …PETITIONER (BY SRI MADHUKAR M.D., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS AND LEGISLATION VIDHANA SOUDHA DR. BR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU-560 001. 2. DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY 4TH FLOOR, VIKASA SOUDHA DR. BR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU-560 001. 3. BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANGARA PALIKE N.R. SQUARE, HUDSON CIRCLE Digitally signed by CHAITHRA P Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22668 WP No. 21991 of 2024 BENGALURU-560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER. 4. THE JOINT DIRECTOR (TOWN PLANNING-NORTH) BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE N.R. SQUARE, HUDSON CIRCLE BENGALURU-560 002. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI H.K. KENCHE GOWDA, AGA FOR R-1 AND R-2; SRI K.B. MONESH KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R-3 AND R-4) * * * THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 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) ANNEXURE-A KARNATAKA ACT NO.1 OF 2022, WITH EFFECT FORM 11-1-21 AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL, MANIFESTLY 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. 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 - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22668 WP No. 21991 of 2024 ORAL ORDER The captioned petiton is filed seeking the following reliefs: 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 form 4th September 2015 and also Sections 240A and 240C inserted into the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike 2020 (Karnataka Act no. 53 of 2020) ANNEXURE-A Karnataka Act No. 1 of 2022 with effect form 11.01.21 as unconstitutional, manifestly 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. 2. Quash demand notice bearing no. BBMP/ADDL/Dir/JDNROTH/LP/0262/2015-16 dated 16.07.2024 under Annexure-B to the writ petition, issued by Respondent No.4. 3. Direct the 3rd and 4th Respondent by issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus to consider the representation dated 24.09.21 and Representation dated 28.09.2021 under Annexure-E And F and Two Reminders both dated 06.11.2021 at Annexure-G And H respectively and to refund to the Petitioner the amount paid by the Petitioner. 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. The Co-ordinate Benches of this Court, in W.P.No.23086/2022 and connected matters(herein referred to as “M/s Sapthagiri Shelters”) as well as W.P.No.36017/2018 and connected matters(herein - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22668 WP No. 21991 of 2024 referred to as “Sunderam Shetty”), have comprehensively adjudicated the issue involved and settled the controversy. 3. In Sunderam Shetty and connected cases, the Co- ordinate Bench declared the levies of Ground Rent, License Fee, Building License Fee, and Scrutiny Fee under the relevant bye-laws as ultra vires the Act and quashed the Government Circulars dated 04.09.2015, 27.01.2017, and 30.03.2017. and 4. Similarly, in M/s Sapthagiri Shelters and connected matters, the Co-ordinate Bench struck down the Karnataka Act No.01 of 2022 and Karnataka Act No.37 of 2024, holding that linking fees under Rule 37-A of the Karnataka Planning Authority Rules, 1965 to market/guidance value under Section 45-B of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 is illegal. It further quashed all related Circulars and declared Clause 3.8 of the BBMP Building Bye-laws, 2003, pertaining to Ground Rent, as invalid. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22668 WP No. 21991 of 2024 5. The issues raised in the present writ petition are squarely covered by the above binding decisions, wherein the relevant bye-laws and government circulars have been set aside. 6. In light of the authoritative pronouncements, the present petition does not warrant separate adjudication and is liable to be allowed in terms of the operative directions issued in the aforesaid writ petitions. 7. Accordingly, this Court proceeds to pass the following: ORDER (i) The writ petition is allowed. (ii) The impugned demand notice dated 16.07.2024 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. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22668 WP No. 21991 of 2024 (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. (vii) Insofar as payment made by the petitioner, the Respondent- BBMP shall consider the representations made by the petitioner for refund of the amount as per Annexure-E and F and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within 8 weeks. Pending applications, if any, are also disposed off. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE HDK