M/S Gardencity Realty Pvt. Ltd. Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S. GARDENCITY REALTY PVT. LTD. A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.5AC-510, HRBR LAYOUT, 2^ND BLOCK, OUTER RING ROAD, BANGALORE-560 043.

¶10

M/S. CENTURY SHELTORS DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. A PARTNERSHIP FIRM, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.10/1, GROUND FLOOR, LAKSHMINARAYANA COMPLEX, PALACE ROAD, BANGALORE-560 052.

¶11

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

¶12

K. MURALI KRISHNA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, S/O SRI. K. VENKATESWARA RAO, RESIDING AT NO.314, 100 FEET ROAD, 1^ST STAGE, INDIRANAGAR, BANGALORE-560 038.

¶13

K.L. SANTOSH AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, S/O SRI. K. MURALIKRISHNA, RESIDING AT NO.314, 100 FEET ROAD, 1^ST STAGE, INDIRANAGAR, BANGALORE-560 038.

¶14

2 -

¶15

NC: 2025:KHC:22873 WP No. 32507 of 2024

¶16

HC-KAR

¶17

PETITIONERS ARE REPRESENTED BY THEIR POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER. M/S. HEBBAL INFRASPACE PVT. LTD., A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.5AC-510,,HRBR LAYOUT, 2^ND BLOCK, OUTER RING ROAD, KALYAN NAGAR, BANGALORE-560 043, REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY, SRI. ASHISH BHASIN.

¶18

…PETITIONERS

¶19

(BY SRI. SAMMITH S., ADVOCATE)

¶20

AND:

¶21

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS UNDER SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶22

THE BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER, N.R. SQUARE, BENGALURU-560 002.

¶23

THE JOINT DIRECTOR TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (NORTH) 3^RD FLOOR, 4^TH GATE, M.S. BUILDING, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560 001.

¶24

…RESPONDENTS

¶25

(BY SRI. BOPANNA B., AGA FOR R1; SRI. K.B. MONESH KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3)

¶26

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO (A)

¶27

3 -

¶28

NC: 2025:KHC:22873 WP No. 32507 of 2024

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

GRANT AN ORDER DECLARING THAT THE ENTIRE KARNATAKA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND CERTAIN OTHER LAW (AMENDMENT) ACT, 2021 (KARNATAKA ACT NO.1/2022) NOTIFIED ON 13.01.2022 AS CONTAINED IN ANNEXURE-E AS BEING ULTRA VIRES THE COSNTITUTION AND ETC.

¶31

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

¶32

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶33

ORAL ORDER

¶34

This petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:-

¶35

“a. Grant an order declaring that the entire Karnataka Municipal Corporations and Certain Other Law (Amendment) Act, 2021 (Karnataka Act No. 01 of 2022) notified on 13/01/2022 as contained in ANNEXURE-E as being ultra vires the Constitution;

¶36

b. grant an order, direction or writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the Office Order No. HaNiNaYo/PR/461/2021-22 dated 09/03/2022 issued by Respondent No.2 as contained in ANNEXURE-G;

¶37

c. grant an order declaring that the entire Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike and Certain Other Law (Amendment) Act, 2023 (Karnataka Act No. 37 of 2024) notified by

¶38

4 -

¶39

NC: 2025:KHC:22873 WP No. 32507 of 2024

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

Respondent No.1 on 16/08/2024 as contained in ANNEXURE-J as being ultra vires the Constitution;

¶42

d. grant an order, direction or writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the demand notice bearing no. PRJ No./2590/2022-23 dated 14/11/2024, as contained in ANNEXURE-K insofar as the levy of Ground rent, license fee, scrutiny fee, etc., along with penalty charges and Labor cess;

¶43

e. grant an order, direction or writ in the nature of mandamus directing Respondent Nos. 2 to issue modified sanction plan to the Petitioner without insistence of the fess Payable to BBMP at Sl. No. 1 to 11 (i.e., Ground rent, licence fee, scrutiny fee etc.,) and Labour Cess charges as contained in demand notice bearing no. PRJ No./ 2590/2022-23 dated 14/11/2024, as contained in ANNEXURE-K;

¶44

f. grant an order, direction or declare that the various fees levied on the basis of the guidance value of the property are all bad in law and unconstitutional; and

¶45

g. grant such other relief or reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit to grant, including the cost of the Petitioners, in the facts and

¶46

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:22873 WP No. 32507 of 2024

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity.”

¶49

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;

¶50

"ORDER

¶51

(i) The writ petitions are partly allowed.

¶52

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

¶53

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

¶54

6 -

¶55

NC: 2025:KHC:22873 WP No. 32507 of 2024

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

(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.

¶58

(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.

¶59

(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.

¶60

(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.

¶61

7 -

¶62

NC: 2025:KHC:22873 WP No. 32507 of 2024

¶63

HC-KAR

¶64

(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.

¶65

(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."

¶66

In the present writ petition, the core issue 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 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).

¶67

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:22873 WP No. 32507 of 2024

¶68

HC-KAR

¶69

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.

¶70

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.

¶71

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:22873 WP No. 32507 of 2024

¶72

HC-KAR

¶73

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.

¶74

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

¶75

ORDER

¶76

(i) The writ petition is allowed.

¶77

(ii) The impugned demand notice bearing No.PRJ No.2590/2022-23 dated 14.11.2024 issued by respondent No.3 as per Annexure-K is hereby set-aside.

¶78

10 -

¶79

NC: 2025:KHC:22873 WP No. 32507 of 2024

¶80

HC-KAR

¶81

(iii) Respondent No.2 - BBMP hereby directed to issue fresh/modified sanction plan as the case may be.

¶82

(iv) Respondent No.2 - BBMP is hereby directed to forthwith process the petitioners' application seeking building license and sanction of the building plan, strictly in accordance with law.

¶83

(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.

¶84

(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.

¶85

Pending applications, if any, are also disposed off.

¶86

Sd/(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE

¶87

NBM

¶88

List No.: 2 Sl No.: 34

M/S Gardencity Realty Pvt. Ltd. v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Gardencity Realty Pvt. Ltd. v. the 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 N Ramachandraih Vs State of Karnataka

Mr G S Prasanna Kumar Vs State of Karnataka

Mrs Roseline Kumar Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Harish D Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt H B Yashodha Vs Sri H C Cheluvaiah

Mr Raja Dattakumar Vs the State of Karnataka