- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26750 WP No. 23824 of 2021 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.23824 OF 2021 (LB-BMP) BETWEEN: 1. MR. B.S.N. HARI S/O. LATE SATYANNA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS HAVING OFFICE AT NO.1, GUTTE ANJANEYA TEMPLE STREET, HOSUR ROAD, WILSON GARDEN, BENGALURU-560 027. 2. MR. JAVED HAROON S/O. LATE SYED ALI, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS HAVING OFFICE AT NO.1, GUTTE ANJANEYA TEMPLE STREET, HOSUR ROAD, WILSON GARDEN, BENGALURU-560 027. 3. MR. NASEER HUMAYUN S/O. LATE SYED ALI, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, HAVING OFFICE AT NO.1, GUTTE ANJANEYA TEMPLE STREET, HOSUR ROAD, WILSON GARDEN, BENGALURU-560 027. 4. MR. CHIMANLAL TALREJA S/O. LATE LALCHAND, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, NO.45, NANJAPPA ROAD, SHANTHI NAGAR, BENGALURU-560 027. Digitally signed by KAVYA R Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26750 WP No. 23824 of 2021 5. M/S. NAVAKARNATAKA PROPERTIES AND HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED NO.696, 21ST CROSS, II SECTOR, H.S.R LAYOUT, BENGALURU-560 102. 6. MR. LOKESH S/O. LATE KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/AT. NAGARESHWARA NAGENAHALLI VILLAGE, K.R. PURAM HOBLI, BENGALURU EAST TALUK, BENGALURU-560 016. 7. SMT. K. NANDINI W/O. MR. LOKESH, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, R/AT. NAGARESHWARA NAGENAHALLI VILLAGE, K.R. PURAM HOBLI, BENGALURU EAST TALUK, BENGALURU-560 016. 8. MR. MANJUNATH S/O. LATE KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/AT. NAGARESHWARA NAGENAHALLI VILLAGE, K.R. PURAM HOBLI, BENGALURU EAST TALUK, BENGALURU-560 016. 9. MR. S. SOMASHEKAR S/O. LATE SRI SONNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/AT. KOTHANUR VILLAGE, K.R. PURAM HOBLI, BENGALURU EAST TALUK, BENGALURU-560 016. 10. MRS. PAOLA RAVISHANKAR W/O. SRI D. RAVISHANKAR, AGED 50 YEARS, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26750 WP No. 23824 of 2021 R/AT. GUTTE ANJANEYA TEMPLE STREET. HOSUR ROAD, WILSON GARDEN, BENGALURU-560 027. ALL ARE REPRESENTED BY THEIR GPA HOLDER, MANTRI DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.41, VITTAL MALLYA ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY, MR. RAVISHANKAR B.S. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI MAHESH S. AND CO., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY, URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU-560 001. 2. THE COMMISSIONER BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, N.R. SQUARE, BENGALURU-560 002. 3. THE JOINT DIRECTOR TOWN PLANNING-NORTH, BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, N.R. SQUARE, BENGALURU-560 002. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI H.K. KENCHEGOWDA, AGA FOR R-1; SRI V.G. BHANU PRAKASH, ADVOCATE FOR R-2 AND R-3) * * * - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26750 WP No. 23824 of 2021 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE CIRCULAR ISSUED BY THE R2 COMMISSIONER DATED 04.09.2015 LEVYING FEES AS CONTAINED IN ANNEXURE-E AND THE CONSEQUENT DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED BY THE R3 COMMISSIONER DEMAND LETTER DATED 16.12.2021 DEMANDING AN AMOUNT OF RS.2,21,35,000/- FOR ISSUANCE OR OCCUPANCY CERTIFICATE ANNEXURE-D. THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, 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) Grant an order, direction or writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the circular issued by the 2nd respondent commissioner bearing No. HNINYO/JD(U)DM3/PR/320/2015- 16 dated 04-09-2015 levying fees as contained in Annexure-E and the consequent demand notice issued by the 3rd respondent commissioner demand letter dated 16/12/2021 bearing No. BBMP/Addl.Dir/JD-North/0236/2012-13 demanding an amount of Rs. 2,21,35,000/- for issuance or occupancy certificate Annexure-D. ii) Grant an order, direction or writ in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondents to issue Occupancy Certificate. iii) Declare that the commissioner of BBMP has no authority to impose/levy fee on the basis of market value of property fixed under Sec. 45 (B) Karnataka Stamp Act - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26750 WP No. 23824 of 2021 1957, unless Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Building Byelaws 2003 is suitably amended and approved by the State Government. iv) Declare that the corporation have no authority to collect the taxes under the guise of collection of license fee under various heads, without sanction by the Government. v) Issue writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents no. 2 and 3 to collect the fees as specified in the Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Building Byelaws 2003 only; vi) Declare that the ground rent levied on the petitioners for obtaining occupancy certificate is bad in law, since the petitioner is not using the public land/property, for stocking of building materials for construction purposes. vii) And grant such other relief or reliefs as this Hon'ble court may deem fit to grant, including cost of the petitioner, in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice. 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 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 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26750 WP No. 23824 of 2021 relevant bye-laws as ultra vires the Act and quashed the Government Circulars dated 04.09.2015, 27.01.2017, and 30.03.2017. 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. 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 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26750 WP No. 23824 of 2021 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 letter dated 16.12.2021 issued by respondent No.3 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. (iv) Respondent - BBMP is 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 the occupancy certificate shall not be withheld - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26750 WP No. 23824 of 2021 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 subject to the outcome of any appeal that may be filed by the BBMP against the said judgment. Pending applications, if any, are also disposed off. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE HDK List No.: 2 Sl No.: 0