M/S Bhartiya Urban Private Limited Vs the State of Karnataka

¶1

NC: 2025:KHC:50753 WP No. 33812 of 2025

¶2

1 -

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 33812 OF 2025 (LB-BMP)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

M/S BHARTIYA URBAN PRIVATE LIMITED A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF COMPANIES ACT, 1956 HAVING THEIR REGISTERED OFFICE AT THANISANDRA MAIN ROAD, THANISANDRA, BENGALURU - 560 064. REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE SRI. DINKAR HERIKUDRU

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI.ASHOK HARANAHALLI, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI.SAMMITH S., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by MARKONAHALLI RAMU PRIYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS AND LEGISLATION, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶14

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

¶15

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:50753 WP No. 33812 of 2025

¶16

HC-KAR

¶17

THE GREATER BENGALURU AUTHORITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF COMMISSIONER, N.R. SQUARE, BENGALURU - 560 002.

¶18

BENGALURU NORTH CITY CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER, GREATER BENGALURU AUTHORITY, (FORMERLY YELAHANKA ZONAL COMMISSIONER OFFICE), AMRUTHAHALLI MAIN ROAD, BELLARY ROAD, BENGALURU 560092.

¶19

THE JOINT DIRECTOR, TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING NORTH, BENGALURU NORTH CITY CORPORATION, AMRUTHAHALLI MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 092.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI.B.BOPANNA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2; SRI.K.B.MONESH KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R3 & R5)

¶22

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DECLARE SECTION 18-A OF KARNATAKA TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT, 1961 AS INSERTED BY SECTION 6 OF KARNATAKA TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (AMENDMENT) ACT, 1988 (KARNATAKA ACT NO.23 OF 2004) AS CONTAINED IN ANNEXURE-C AS BEING ULTRA VIRES THE CONSTITUTION AND ETC.,

¶23

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

¶24

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:50753 WP No. 33812 of 2025

¶25

HC-KAR

¶26

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶27

ORAL ORDER

¶28

In this writ petition, the petitioner has sought for a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the demand notice bearing No.JDTP/LP/25/2010-11 dated 24.10.2025 directing it to deposit a sum of Rs.23,15,29,588/- (Rupees Twenty Three Crores Fifteen Lakhs Twenty Nine Thousand Five Hundred and Eighty Eight only) which includes Rs.76,65,000/- (Rupees Seventy Six Lakhs Sixty Five Thousand only) towards the compounding fee for deviation in the constructed area, scrutiny fees, ground rent with applicable GST and Rs.22,38,64,588/- (Rupees Twenty Two Crores Thirty Eight Lakhs Sixty Four Thousand Five Hundred and Eighty Eight only) towards the arrears of fees. The petitioner has also sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct Respondent No.4 to issue partial occupancy certificate without insisting of payment of a sum of Rs.23,15,29,588/- (Rupees Twenty Three Crores Fifteen Lakhs Twenty Nine Thousand Five Hundred

¶29

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:50753 WP No. 33812 of 2025

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

and Eighty Eight only) of which Rs.76,65,000/- (Rupees Seventy Six Lakhs Sixty Five Thousand only) is towards compounding fee and Rs.22,38,64,588/- (Rupees Twenty Two Crores Thirty Eight Lakhs Sixty Four Thousand Five Hundred and Eighty Eight only) is towards the arrears of fees.

¶32

2(i). Though the petition is elaborate, the necessary facts for consideration of this writ petition are that the respondent-the erstwhile Bruhath Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) had imposed ground rent, license fee, scrutiny fee, inspection charges etc., and a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.9949 of 2021 (LB-BMP), had quashed the demand as there was no corresponding law which enabled the Corporation to collect the said charges. Later, the State Government issued a Validation Act validating the collection of the above charges, which again was challenged before this Court and a Co-ordinate Bench of this court in W.P.No.23086 of 2022 (LB-BMP) and connected matters quashed the Validation Act. The same

¶33

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:50753 WP No. 33812 of 2025

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

is now challenged in Writ Appeal No.1050 of 2025 (LBBMP), where the Division Bench, in terms of an interim order dated 23.07.2025, had stayed the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench and clarified that the fee collected by the BBMP for sanction of building plans will be subject to the outcome of the appeal and in the event, it fails in the appeal, the fee collected should be refunded to the concerned parties.

¶36

(ii). The petitioner sought for sanction of an occupancy certificate in respect of Block No.11 and therefore made a request. The Respondent-Corporation, issued the impugned demand notice demanding a sum of Rs.23,15,29,588/- (Rupees Twenty Three Crores Fifteen Lakhs Twenty Nine Thousand Five Hundred and Eighty Eight only) towards issuing the occupancy certificate. Petitioner, therefore being aggrieved by the said demand is before the Court.

¶37

Sri.Ashok Haranahalli, learned Senior Counsel

¶38

for the petitioner submitted that the question whether the

¶39

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:50753 WP No. 33812 of 2025

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

respondents are entitled to collect the ground rent and other fees is at large in Writ Appeal No.1050 of 2025 and therefore, the respondents cannot insist upon the petitioner to pay those charges as a condition precedent for issuing the occupancy certificate in respect of Block No. 11. He contends that the respondent has sanctioned plan for each block separately and therefore, the respondent is bound to grant an occupancy certificate for each block by assessing the charges payable. He contends that the petitioner is willing to pay a sum of Rs.2,19,48,000/(Rupees Two Crores Nineteen Lakhs Forty Eight Thousand only), which is the outstanding amount payable in respect of Block No.11 apart from a sum of Rs.76,65,000/(Rupees Seventy Six Lakhs Sixty Five Thousand only), which is towards the compounding fee and therefore, seeks for a direction to the respondent to sanction the occupancy certificate without insisting upon the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.22,38,64,588/- (Rupees Twenty Two

¶42

7 -

¶43

NC: 2025:KHC:50753 WP No. 33812 of 2025

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

Crores Thirty Eight Lakhs Sixty Four Thousand Five Hundred and Eighty Eight only).

¶46

The learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the petitioner was due of a sum of Rs.22,38,64,588/- (Rupees Twenty Two Crores Thirty Eight Lakhs Sixty Four Thousand Five Hundred and Eighty Eight only). He contends that if the petitioner pays up the said amount, the respondent would have no objection to issue an occupancy certificate. He however contends that, in case, if the Respondents/BBMP fails in Writ Appeal No.1050 of 2025, the Respondents/BBMP would refund the said amount. He therefore submits that the impugned demand notice cannot be upset on the claim of the petitioner that it is willing to pay a sum of Rs.2,19,48,000/- (Rupees Two Crores Nineteen Lakhs Forty Eight Thousand only) for issuing the occupancy certificate in respect to Block No.11. He also submits that the petitioner who is a member of KREDI approached the respondents seeking for installments to pay the said sum

¶47

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:50753 WP No. 33812 of 2025

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

of Rs.22,38,64,588/- (Rupees Twenty Two Crores Thirty Eight Lakhs Sixty Four Thousand Five Hundred and Eighty Eight only) and that the respondent as a matter of policy had permitted the sum of Rs.22,38,64,588/- (Rupees Twenty Two Crores Thirty Eight Lakhs Sixty Four Thousand Five Hundred and Eighty Eight only) to be paid in three installments. He therefore submits that if the petitioner undertakes to pay the aforesaid amount within the time mentioned in the letter dated 27.11.2025, the respondent would release the occupancy certificate.

¶50

In view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that as of now, there is not much dispute between the petitioner and the respondents. Therefore, this petition deserves to be disposed of directing the respondents to issue an occupancy certificate in respect of Block No.11 upon the petitioner paying a sum of Rs.2,19,48,000/(Rupees Two Crores Nineteen Lakhs Forty Eight Thousand only) along with a sum of Rs.76,65,000/- (Rupees Seventy Six Lakhs Sixty Five Thousand only). If the petitioner pays

¶51

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:50753 WP No. 33812 of 2025

¶52

HC-KAR

¶53

the said amount within a period of one week, the occupancy certificate shall be issued within period of two weeks, thereafter. The petitioner shall also give an undertaking and pay the balance amount of ground rent and other charges of Rs.22,38,64,588/- (Rupees Twenty

¶54

Two Crores Thirty Eight Lakhs Sixty Four Thousand Five Hundred and Eighty Eight only) as per the installments given by the respondents, in terms of the letter dated 27.11.2025, referred supra. The grant of occupancy certificate in respect of Block No.11 and the payment of Rs.22,38,64,588/- (Rupees Twenty Two Crores Thirty Eight Lakhs Sixty Four Thousand Five Hundred and Eighty Eight only) by the petitioner, shall be subject to the outcome of Writ Appeal No.1050 of 2025 (LB-BMP).

¶55

The writ petition stands disposed of on the above

¶56

terms.

¶57

Sd/(R. NATARAJ) JUDGE

¶58

DH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 36

M/S Bhartiya Urban Private Limited v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Bhartiya Urban Private Limited 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr. Udayakumar Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Bhagya Jyothi Vidya Samsthe (Regd) Vs State of Karnataka

M/S Popular Advertisers Vs State of Karnataka

M Mukambika Vs State of Karnataka

Smt. Suman v Vs the Commissioner

Satya Acharya Vs the Chief Commissioner