M/S Eaglesight Telemedia Private Limited Vs… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

M/S Eaglesight Telemedia Private Limited Vs… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition allowed: impugned demand notice (Annexure-J) set aside; BBMP directed to issue fresh/modified plan and to forthwith process the petitioner's building licence and plan sanction application in accordance with law; such issuance not to be withheld merely because BBMP contemplates appeal, but subject to the outcome of any such appeal.

Issue for consideration

Whether the demand notice (Annexure-J) issued by respondent No.3 in respect of LP/Project No. PRJ/5876/2021-22 survives, given that the coordinate Bench in W.P.No.23086/2022 and connected matters has quashed the Karnataka Municipal Corporations amendment Acts of 2021 and 2023, the Rules 37-A/37-C levy regime, the Circulars and demand notices giving effect thereto, and Clause 3.8 (Ground Rent) of the BBMP Building Bye-laws, 2003.

Court's answer

The writ petition is liable to be allowed, strictly aligning to the operative portion of the coordinate Bench judgment in W.P.No.23086/2022 and connected matters, as the controversy is squarely covered thereby; accordingly the writ petition is allowed.

Ratio / Principle

The impugned demand notice issued by respondent No.3 as per Annexure-J is set aside.

Key takeaways

Respondent-BBMP is directed to issue fresh/modified plan, as the case may be.ratio¶71
Respondent-BBMP is directed to forthwith process the petitioner's application seeking building license and sanction of the building plan, strictly in accordance with law.ratio¶72
Issuance of the building license and approval plan shall not be withheld merely on the ground that the BBMP is contemplating an appeal against the reported judgment.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU (Sachin Shankar Magadum, J.), 02-07-2025, W.P. No. 22186 of 2024 (LB-BMP), M/s. Eaglesight Telemedia Pvt. Ltd. v. Bruhath Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike and others — Writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 challenging an undated BBMP demand notice (LP/Project No. PRJ/5876/2021-22, Annexure-J) issued by respondent No.3. Following the coordinate Bench judgment in W.P.No.23086/2022 and connected matters — which quashed the Karnataka Municipal Corporations and Certain Other Law (Amendment) Acts, 2021 (Act 1 of 2022) and 2023 (Act 37 of 2024), declared that Section 18-A KTCP Act, 1961 read with Rules 37-A and 37-C Karnataka Planning Authority Rules, 1965 applies only to plots exceeding 20,000 sq.m., barred double fee under the 'Note' below Table I of Rule 37-A, held illegal the linkage of Rule 37-A fees to market/guidance value under Section 45-B Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957, quashed the implementing Circulars and demand notices, and struck down Clause 3.8 (Ground Rent) of the BBMP Building Bye-laws, 2003 — the Court held the controversy squarely covered and allowed the petition: the demand notice was set aside; BBMP was directed to issue a fresh/modified plan and to forthwith process the petitioner's building licence and plan sanction application in accordance with law; issuance is not to be withheld merely because BBMP contemplates an appeal, but remains subject to the outcome of any such appeal. Pending applications disposed of.

1 -

NC: 2025:KHC:26076 WP No. 22186 of 2024

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF JULY, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO.22186 OF 2024 (LB-BMP)

BETWEEN:

M/S. EAGLESIGHT TELEMEDIA PRIVATE LIMITED REG. OFFICE AT NO.22, DK AND JK, N.S. IYENGAR STREET, SHESHADRIPURAM BENGALURU-560 020 REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY, SRI NARAYAN RAVI KUMAR, S/O. NARAYAN T, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS DIRECTOR OF THE COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER COMPANIES ACT, 2013. …PETITIONER

(BY SRI KASHINATH J.D., ADVOCATE)

AND:

Digitally signed by NAGARAJA B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE N.R. SQUARE, BENGALURU-560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF COMMISSIONER.

THE JOINT COMMISSIONER BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, DASARAHALLI ZONE, HESARUGHATTA MAIN ROAD, BAGALAGUNTE, MEI LAYOUT, BENGALURU-560 073.

THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR TOWN PLANNING DASARAHALLI,

2 -

NC: 2025:KHC:26076 WP No. 22186 of 2024

HC-KAR

BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, OFFICE OF NH-4, NEXT TO POST OFFICE, BENGALURU-560 057.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI MONESH KUMAR K.B., ADVOCATE FOR R-1 TO R-3)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR ENTIRE RECORDS PERTAINS TO LP NO.PRJ/5876/2021-22 PROJECT NO.PRJ/5876/2021-22 UNDATED PERTAINS TO THE OFFICE OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT AND QUASH THE IMPUGNED DEMAND NOTICE UNDATED BEARING NO.LP NO. PRJ/5876/2021-22 PROJECT NO.PRJ/5876/2021-22 UNDATED PERTAINS TO THE OFFICE OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT AS PER ANNEXURE-J.

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:

Wherefore the petitioner humbly prays that, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to:

i. Call for entire records pertains to LP No. PRJ/5876/2021-22 Project No.PRJ/5876/2021-22 undated pertains to the office of the 3^rd respondent.

3 -

NC: 2025:KHC:26076 WP No. 22186 of 2024

HC-KAR

ii. Issue writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ to quash the impugned demand Notice undated bearing No. LP No. PRJ/5876/2021-22 Project No.PRJ/5876/2021-22 undated pertains to the office of the 3^rd respondent as per Annexure-J .

iii. Consequently issue necessary direction to 3^rd respondent to consider the modification of sanction plan applied by the petitioner on 10-07-2024 as per annexureG and issue necessary demand notice by leaving fees already paid in the original sanction plan dated:15-032022 to meet the interest of justice.

iv. Issue any other writ or order or direction deems fit to the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice.

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).

4 -

NC: 2025:KHC:26076 WP No. 22186 of 2024

HC-KAR

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.

(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.

5 -

NC: 2025:KHC:26076 WP No. 22186 of 2024

HC-KAR

(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 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."

In the present writ petition, the core issue raised stands substantially covered and decided by the

6 -

NC: 2025:KHC:26076 WP No. 22186 of 2024

HC-KAR

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

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.

7 -

NC: 2025:KHC:26076 WP No. 22186 of 2024

HC-KAR

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

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.

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

8 -

NC: 2025:KHC:26076 WP No. 22186 of 2024

HC-KAR

ORDER

(i) The writ petition is allowed.

(ii) The impugned demand notice issued by respondent No.3 as per Annexure-J is hereby set-aside.

(iii) Respondent- BBMP hereby directed to issue fresh/modified plan as the case may be.

(iv) RespondentBBMP is hereby directed to forthwith process the petitioner's application seeking building license and sanction of the building plan, strictly in accordance with law.

(v) It is made clear that the issuance of the building license and approval plan shall not be withheld merely on the ground that the BBMP is contemplating to file an appeal against the reported judgment.

(vi) If the building license and sanction plan are 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.: 23