M/S. Arsis Developers Pvt. Ltd., Vs State of Karnataka

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:21315 WP No. 3715 of 2021

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO.3715 OF 2021 (LB-BMP)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

M/S. ARSIS DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., A REGISTERED COMPANY, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.2/27, 1^ST CROSS, I MAIN, R.M.S. COLONY, VIRGO NAGAR POST, BHATTARAHALLI, BANGALORE-560 049.

¶9

Digitally signed by PAVITHRA B Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶10

SRI. K.N.SUBBARAYA SETTY AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, S/O. LATE K. M. NARAYANA SETTY, R/AT NO.145, MASJID ROAD, K.R. PURAM, BANGALORE EAST TALUK, BANGALORE - 560 049,

¶11

REPRESENTED BY HIS GPA HOLDER, M/S. ARSIS DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., A REGISTERED COMPANY, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.2/27, 1^ST CROSS, I MAIN, R.M.S. COLONY, VIRGO NAGAR POST, BHATTARAHALLI, BANGALORE - 560 049. BY ITS DIRECTOR SRI. K. PEDDI REDDY. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. VIVEKANANDA T.P., ADVOCATE)

¶12

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:21315 WP No. 3715 of 2021

¶13

HC-KAR

¶14

AND:

¶15

STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, 4^TH FLOOR, VIKASA SOUDHA, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶16

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

¶17

THE JOINT DIRECTOR BUILDING LICENSE CELL (NORTH), BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE, N.R. SQUARE, BANGALORE -560 002.

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

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

¶20

THIS W.P IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING 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 1ST RESPONDENT AT ANNEXUREK IN SO FAR AS 18-A(i) AND (iv) OF KARNATAKA ACT NO.23 OF 2004 IS CONCERNED AND ETC.,

¶21

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

¶22

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

Petitioners in the captioned petition have sought the

¶25

following reliefs:

¶26

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:21315 WP No. 3715 of 2021

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

i. 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 1st Respondent at Annexure-K in so far as 18-A(i) and (iv) of Karnataka Act No.23 of 2004 is concerned.

¶29

ii. Grant an order, direction or writ in the nature of Certiorari quashing the Notification issued by the 1st Respondent bearing No.UDD 3 TP 2015 dated 25.02.2020 as contained in ANNEXURE-L in so far as the amended Rule 37-A and Rule 37-C are concerned;

¶30

iii. Issue a writ of certiorari or similar writ or order or direction to quash the demand notice No.BBMP/Addl.Dir /JDNORTH/LP/0049/2019-20 dated 15.01.2021 at Annexure -H issued by the respondent No.3 only in so far as the demand of Betterment fee of Rs.7,81,124/towards building, Rs.2,46,162/- towards service charges on cess and surcharge, Rs.9,84,648/- towards Water Supply Scheme, Rs.9,84,648/- towards formation of Ring Road, Rs.4,92,324/- towards Improvement of Slums, Rs.49,23,240/towards Mass Rapid Transport are concerned;

¶31

iv. Issue any other appropriate writ or order or direction as deemed fit in the circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity.

¶32

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

¶33

connected matters . The Co-ordinate Bench, while deciding the issue, has set-aside the Karnataka Municipal

¶34

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:21315 WP No. 3715 of 2021

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

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;

¶37

"ORDER

¶38

(i) The writ petitions are partly allowed.

¶39

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

¶40

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

¶41

(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

¶42

5 -

¶43

NC: 2025:KHC:21315 WP No. 3715 of 2021

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

not in respect of plots measuring less than 20,000 square meters.

¶46

(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.

¶47

(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.

¶48

(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.

¶49

(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.

¶50

(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

¶51

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:21315 WP No. 3715 of 2021

¶52

HC-KAR

¶53

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."

¶54

In the present writ petition, the core issue raised

¶55

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).

¶56

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.

¶57

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:21315 WP No. 3715 of 2021

¶58

HC-KAR

¶59

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.

¶60

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.

¶61

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

¶62

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:21315 WP No. 3715 of 2021

¶63

HC-KAR

¶64

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.

¶65

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

¶66

ORDER

¶67

(i) The writ petition is allowed.

¶68

(ii) The impugned demand notice dated 15.01.2021 issued by respondent No.3 as per Annexure-H is hereby set-aside.

¶69

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

¶70

(iv) Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are hereby directed to forthwith process the petitioner's application seeking building license and sanction of the building plan, strictly in accordance with law.

¶71

(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

¶72

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:21315 WP No. 3715 of 2021

¶73

HC-KAR

¶74

contemplating to file an appeal against the reported judgment.

¶75

(vi) If the building licence 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.

¶76

Pending applications, if any, are also disposed off.

¶77

SD/(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE

¶78

PB List No.: 2 Sl No.: 22

M/S. Arsis Developers Pvt. Ltd., v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Arsis Developers Pvt. Ltd., 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

Smt. Gowramma Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Ashwin K Raj @ Ashwin Kantha Raj Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. R. Shivaram Vs State of Karnataka

M/S Krishna E Campus Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Karnataka

M/S Sjr Prime Spectrum Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Karnataka

Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. Vs the State of Karnataka