- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14619-DB WA No. 236 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF WRIT APPEAL NO. 236 OF 2025 (LB-BMP) BETWEEN: ASTRAZENECA PHARMA INDIA LTD., A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER COMPANIES ACT 1956 AND HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT BLOCK N1, 12TH FLOOR, MANYATA EMBASSY BUSINESS PARK, RACHAENAHALLI, OUTER RING ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 045, REPRESENTED BY HEAD-LEGAL, MR. PANKAJ JAIN …APPELLANT (BY SRI. KUMAR N.J., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE - 560 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, 2. BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, BANGALORE - 560 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER 3. ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER, BYATARAYANAPURA SUB-DIVISION, Digitally signed by REKHA R Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14619-DB WA No. 236 of 2025 YELAHANKA REGION, BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, BANGALORE - 560 092. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.G.S. ARUNA HCGP FOR R1, SRI. B.S. SATYANAND., ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGEMENT AND ORDER DATED:10.01.2025 IN WP NO.44447/2014 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE AND CONSEQUENTLY QUASH THE CIRCULAR DATED:01.07.2024 BARING NO.UA(KAM)PR/3356/2011-12 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 AND DEMAND NOTICE BEARING NO.BBMP: YA REG/BYA.SUB.DIV 89/10-11 DATED: 07.08.2014 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3 AND ETC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14619-DB WA No. 236 of 2025 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH) This intra Court appeal has been filed impugning the order dated 10.01.2025 passed by the writ Court in W.P.No.44447/2014 instituted by the appellant. The petitioner has been issued a notice dated 07.08.2014 (Annexure-B), asking the petitioner to pay the improvement cost of Rs.250/- per Square meter, in a total sum of Rs.7,08,24,430/- to BBMP with 7 days from the date of receipt of the notice. 2. The learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner submits that the said notice has been issued on the basis of the Circular dated 01.07.2014. The validity of the said Circular has been upheld by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 26.08.2016 passed in W.P.Nos.56465 & 56724-734/2024. The said judgment dated 26.08.2016 passed in W.P.Nos.56465 & 56724- 734/2024 has attained finality as nobody has challenged the said judgment. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14619-DB WA No. 236 of 2025 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Circular dated 01.07.2014, is contrary to Rule 6 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act (Recovery of Improvement Expenses) Rules, 2009 ('Rules 2009' for short), inasmuch as under Rule 6, the properties allotted by the KIADB are exempted from payment of improvement charges. This vital aspect has been missed by the learned Single Judge while upholding the circular dated 01.07.2014. However, Mr.B.S.Sathyanand, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3-BBMP submits that the Rules, 2009 were applicable to the sites/properties which were situated outside the boundaries of BDA. All these properties including the petitioner's properties have now come within the jurisdiction of BBMP, and therefore, the Circular has been issued levying improvement costs on all properties situated within the jurisdiction of BBMP. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14619-DB WA No. 236 of 2025 4. It is further submitted that once the Circular has been upheld by this Court and the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge has attained finality, the petitioner cannot challenge the very same Circular in the writ appeal before this Court. 5. We have considered the submissions advanced by the appellant/petitioner and respondents. It is not in dispute that the properties were allotted to the petitioner by KIADB. These properties have now come within the jurisdictional limit of BBMP. When once the properties have come within the jurisdictional limit of the BBMP, the Circular dated 01.07.2014 makes it clear that all properties including the properties allotted by KIADB would be liable to pay the improvement costs. The said Circular has been upheld by learned Single judge in its order dated 26.08.2016 passed in W.P.No.56465 and 56724-735/2014. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14619-DB WA No. 236 of 2025 6. We therefore find no justification to interfere with the impugned judgment and order, inasmuch as the legality and the validity of the Circular has already been upheld and it is not in dispute that the petitioner's properties though allotted by the KIADB, come within the jurisdictional limit of BBMP. We therefore dismiss this appeal, however, without cost. In view of dismissal of appeal, pending I.As if any, shall stand disposed of. Sd/- (D K SINGH) JUDGE Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE RR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 27 ct-vn