Smt T Manjula Vs State of Karnataka

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:23019 WP No. 16004 of 2025

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 16004 OF 2025 (LB-BMP)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. T.MANJULA, W/O B. SRINIVASA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, R/AT NO.5, 1^ST "A" CROSS, K.H.B.COLONY MIG, 5^TH BLOCK, BAJAJ MOTOR CYCLE SHOW ROOM, KORMANGALA, BANGALORE SOUTH, BANGALORE 3 560 095.

¶9

Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶10

SRI. SRINIVAS REDDY, S/O LATE MUNIREDDY, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS,

¶11

SMT. JAYAMMA, W/O LATE MUNIREDDY, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS,

¶12

SRI. K. JANGAMA REDDY, S/O KAVERAPPA, AGED ABOUT 87 YEARS,

¶13

SMT. KANAKAMMA, W/O PAPA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,

¶14

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:23019 WP No. 16004 of 2025

¶15

HC-KAR

¶16

SMT. SUKRUTHA, W/O NAGARAJA SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, ALL ARE RESIDING AT PETITIONER NO.2 TO 6 MUTHANALLURU VILLAGE AND POST, ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE DISTRICT 3 562 107.

¶17

&PETITIONERS

¶18

(BY SRI. YASHAVANTHSWAMY A.M., ADVOCATE)

¶19

AND:

¶20

STATE OF KARNATAKA, THE URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, 4^TH FLOOR, VIKASSOUDHA, DR AMBEDKAR VEDI, BANGALORE 3 560 001. REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶21

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS AND LEGISLATION, VIKASA SOUDHA, DR. B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE 3 560 001. REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶22

BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, N R SQUARE, BANGALORE 3 560 002. REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER.

¶23

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:23019 WP No. 16004 of 2025

¶24

HC-KAR

¶25

THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF TOWN PLANNING, BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE, BOMMANAHALLI, BOMMANAHALLI ZONE OFFICE, BEGHUR ROAD, BENGALURU 3 560 068.

¶26

&RESPONDENTS

¶27

(BY SRI. H.K.KENCHEGOWDA, AGA FOR R1 AND R2; SRI. PAWAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R3 AND R4)

¶28

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF

¶29

THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE KARNATAKA MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS AND CERTAIN OTHER LAW(AMENDMENT) ACT 2021 ACT NO.1/2022 DATED 13/01/2022 ENACTED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT PUBLISHED THROUGH NOTIFICATION BEARING NO.DPAL 50 SHASANA 2021 GAZETTE ON 13/01/2022 AT ANNEXURE-G DECLARING IT TO BE ULTRAVIRES AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL SO FOR AS PETITIONER IS CONCERNED AND ETC.

¶30

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶31

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶32

4 -

¶33

NC: 2025:KHC:23019 WP No. 16004 of 2025

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

ORAL ORDER

¶36

Petitioners, in the captioned petition has sought for

¶37

following reliefs :

¶38

(i) Issue a writ of certiorari or similar writ or order or direction to quash the Karnataka Municipal Corporations and Certain other law(amendment) act 2021 act No.1/2022 dated 13/01/2022 enacted by the second respondent published through notification bearing No.DPAL 50 SHASANA 2021 gazette on 13/01/2022 at ANNEXURE-G declaring it to be ultravires and unconstitutional. So for as petitioner is concerned.

¶39

(ii) Issue writ of certiorari or similar writ or order or direction to quash the office order bearing No. ADTP/PR/461/2021-22 dated 09/03/2022 issued by the third respondent at ANNEXURE-H . So for as petitioner is concerned.

¶40

(iii) Issue a writ of certiorari to quash the demand note bearing No. ¸ÀASÉå.¸À.¤.£À.AiÉÆÃ/¨ÉÆ.ªÀ/N.¹/ 07/24-25, anddated 23/04/2025, property at bearing Kataha No.19/sy.no.36/2,36/3,36/4,40/2, Naganathapura village, Beguru Hobli, Bangalore south taluk, Ward No.191, has been approved by The Chief Commissioner BBMP A/C ADTP, Bommanahalli zone, Bangalore. Under various heads. Theis includes the i. License fee, 2. Scrutiny fee, 3. Extra penalty for

¶41

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:23019 WP No. 16004 of 2025

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

additional construction and 4. Ground Rent with GST, Amount to Rs. 85,82,000/-. The copy of the demand Notice dated 23/4/2025 is produced herewith and marked as ANNEXURE-D issued by the respondent No.4 in so far as demand towards. Fee payable to BBMP.

¶44

LP/0066/13-14, Dated 3/5/2013 to 2/5/2015

¶45

*Sl.N* o	*Particul* *ars*	*Area*	*Differen* *ce area* *deviatio* n	*%of* *devia* *tion*	*Remarkss* *anction* *area*
1	As per sanction FAR Area	8934.5
2	As per as sanction Gross BUA	10391. 67
3	As built FAR Area	9278.4 6	343.96	3.84 %
4	As Built gross BUA	10735. 63	343.96	3.31 %
5	Total division for FAR		687.92
6	Guidelinv	e Value	50000
7	Deviatio n fee within the FAR	Area 344	Fee% 8.8%	Amou nt 4400	Total 15,13,600
8	Ground rent penalty for 10	107735 .63	0.11%	55	59,04597

¶46

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:23019 WP No. 16004 of 2025

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

	years
9	GST		18%		1062827
10	Scrutin y fee (as built gross area)	10735. 63	0.014%	7	75149
11	C.C. Fine	0.00	0,22%	110	0
12	Copies fee				25000
13	Applicat ion fee				500
14		Grand tot	al	8	5,81,673
15		*Say amou*	nt	*85,*	*82,000.00*
16	Rs. Ei	ghty five l	akh eighty	two thou	sand only
I	n favour of	The C	hief Commi	ssioner	BBMP A/C
		ADTP Bo	mmanahalli	zone

¶49

(iv) Issue writ of Certiorari or similar writ, order or direction to quash the Circular bearing No.He.Ni.Ka. Pa.Ko/320/2020-21 dated 14/08/2020 at ANNEXURE-J issued by the 3^rd Respondent. So for as petitioner is concerned.

¶50

(v) Issue a writ of Certiorari or similar writ or order or direction to quash provisions of section 18-A of Karnataka Town and Country Planning act, 1961 brought into effect by Karnataka act No.23 of 2004 by the 1^st respondent at ANNEXURE-K in so far as 18-A (i) and ) (iv) of Karnataka act No.23 of 2004 is concerned. So for as petitioner is concerned.

¶51

(vi) Grant an order, direction or writ in the nature of Certiorari quashing the notification issued by the 1^st respondent bearing No.UDD 3TTP 2015 dated

¶52

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:23019 WP No. 16004 of 2025

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

25/2/2020 as contained in ANNEXURE-L in so far as the amended Rule 37-A and rule 37-C are concerned, so for as petitioner is concerned.

¶55

(vii) Issue any other appropriate writ or order or direction to the respondents demand fit in the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity.

¶56

(viii) Pass any such other orders as this Hon'ble court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest justice and equity.

¶57

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;

¶58

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:23019 WP No. 16004 of 2025

¶59

HC-KAR

¶60

"ORDER

¶61

(i) The writ petitions are partly allowed.

¶62

(ii) The Karnataka Municipal Corporations and Certain Other Law (Amendment) Act, 2021 (Karnataka Act No.01 of 2022), is hereby quashed and set aside.

¶63

(iii) The Karnataka Municipal Corporations and Certain Other Law (Amendment) Act, 2023, (Karnataka Act No.37 of 2024), is hereby quashed and set aside.

¶64

(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 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.

¶65

(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.

¶66

(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,

¶67

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:23019 WP No. 16004 of 2025

¶68

HC-KAR

¶69

liberty is reserved to the respondent-State Government and the BBMP to re-fix a standard after collecting empherical data.

¶70

(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.

¶71

(viii) It is hereby declared that Clause 3.8 of the Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Building Bye- laws, 2003, providing for 8Ground Rent9, is illegal and are accordingly quashed and set aside.

¶72

(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."

¶73

3. In the present writ petition, the core issue

¶74

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

¶75

10 - NC: 2025:KHC:23019 WP No. 16004 of 2025

¶76

HC-KAR

¶77

Municipal Corporations and Certain Other Law (Amendment) Acts of 2021 and 2023 (Karnataka Act Nos.01 of 2022 and 37 of 2024 respectively).

¶78

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.

¶79

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

¶80

11 - NC: 2025:KHC:23019 WP No. 16004 of 2025

¶81

HC-KAR

¶82

unlawful interpretations. Clause 3.8 of the BBMP Building Bye-laws, 2003, imposing 'Ground Rent', was also struck down.

¶83

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.

¶84

In view of the above, this Court proceeds to pass the following;

¶85

ORDER

¶86

(i) The writ petition is allowed.

¶87

(ii) The impugned demand notice dated 23.04.2025 issued by respondent No.4 as per Annexure-D is hereby set-aside.

¶88

12 - NC: 2025:KHC:23019 WP No. 16004 of 2025

¶89

HC-KAR

¶90

(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.

¶91

(iv) Respondent- BBMP is hereby directed to forthwith process the petitioner's application seeking occupancy certificate, strictly in accordance with law.

¶92

(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.

¶93

(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.

¶94

Pending applications, if any, are also disposed off.

¶95

Sd/-

¶96

(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE

¶97

SMJ List No.: 2 Sl No.: 25

Smt T Manjula v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt T Manjula v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Eapen Chandy Vs the State of Karnataka

Vishwanatha G M Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Salman Khalid Vs State of Karnataka

Sri T Prabhakar Vs the State of Karnataka

B S Anil Kumar Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr. Y. R. Anil Vs the State of Karnataka