M/S Uab Reality Private Limited Vs the State of Karnataka

¶1

NC: 2025:KHC:21887 WP No. 4317 of 2023

¶2

1 -

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 4317 OF 2023 (LB-BMP)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

M/S UAB REALITY PRIVATE LIMITED A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT 1956 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO. 247, SAHAJA, 1^ST , 7^TH ROAD, KSRTC LAYOUT, J.P. NAGAR 2^ND BENGALURU - 560 078. REP BY ITS DIRECTOR SRI. ASHOK BHAT,.U.,

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. SUDHAKAR G V.,ADVOCATE & SRI. B.PRAMOD., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by GAVRIBIDANUR SUBRAMANYA GUPTA SREENATH

¶12

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THE URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT VIKASA SOUDHA, DR.B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU - 560 001. REP BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶14

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS AND LEGISLATION, VIKASA SOUDHA, DR.B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU - 560 001. REP BY ITS SECREARY.

¶15

2 -

¶16

NC: 2025:KHC:21887 WP No. 4317 of 2023

¶17

HC-KAR

¶18

BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGAR PALIKE N.R.SQUARE, BENGALURU - 560 002. REP BY ITS COMMISSIONER.

¶19

THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR TOWN PLANNING BOMMANAHALLI BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE, BEGUR MAIN ROAD, BOMMANAHALLI, BENGALURU - 560 068.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI.BOPANNA.B .,AGA FOR R-1; SRI.B.L.SANJEEV., ADVOCATE FOR R-3 & R-4)

¶22

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO 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 (ANNEXURE K) ISSUED BY R2 AS BEING ULTRA VIRES THE CONSTITUTION IN SO FAR, THE PETITIONER IS CONCERNED IN SO FAR, THE PETITIONER IS CONCERNED ETC.,

¶23

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

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

The petitioner is seeking for the following reliefs:

¶27

i) Grant an order declaring that the entire Karnataka Municipal Corporations and Certain Other Law (Amendment) Act, 2021 (Karnataka

¶28

3 -

¶29

NC: 2025:KHC:21887 WP No. 4317 of 2023

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

Act No. 01 of 2022) notified on 13/01/2022 (ANNEXURE-K) issued by the Respondent No.2 as being ultra vires the Constitution in so far, the Petitioner is concerned.

¶32

ii) To declare that Karnataka Municipal Corporations and Certain (ANNEXURE-K) Other Law (Amendment) Act, 2021 (Karnataka Act No. 01 of 2022) notified on 13/01/2022 (Annexure-K) issued by Respondent No.2 is in violation /contrary to the decision of this Hon'ble Court in W.P. No.4601/2020 (LB-BMP) which is at Annexure-H. iii) 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.3 as contained in (ANNEXURE-L) in so far, the Petitioner is concerned. iv) Issue a writ or order by way of certiorari quashing the demand notice dated 14/02/2023, bearing No.Ad.Com/BMH/0832/18-19 issued by the Respondent No.4 (Annexure-D) for demanding so far it is concerned to Ground rent, GST on Ground rent , License fee, scrutiny fee

¶33

4 -

¶34

NC: 2025:KHC:21887 WP No. 4317 of 2023

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

and Labour cess as illegal, without Jurisdiction and arbitrary.

¶37

v) Issue a writ or order or direction by way of mandamus directing the Respondent No.3 and 4 BBMP to issue the modified sanction plan for construction of the Commercial-Hospitals Building in the Schedule Property without insisting the Ground rent, GST on Ground rent, License fee, scrutiny fee and Labour cess and

¶38

vi) Pass any such other order(s) as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity.

¶39

It is brought to the notice of this Court that across

¶40

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).

¶41

5 -

¶42

NC: 2025:KHC:21887 WP No. 4317 of 2023

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

Therefore, this Court deems it fit to cull out the operative

¶45

portion of the order, which reads as under;

¶46

"ORDER

¶47

i) The writ petitions are partly allowed.

¶48

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

¶49

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

¶50

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.

¶51

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

¶52

6 -

¶53

NC: 2025:KHC:21887 WP No. 4317 of 2023

¶54

HC-KAR

¶55

terms of the ‘Note’ found below TABLE I of Rule 37-A of the Karnataka Planning Authority Rules, 1965.

¶56

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.

¶57

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.

¶58

viii) It is hereby declared that Clause 3.8 of the Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Building Byelaws, 2003, providing for ‘Ground Rent’, is illegal and are accordingly quashed and set aside.

¶59

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

¶60

7 -

¶61

NC: 2025:KHC:21887 WP No. 4317 of 2023

¶62

HC-KAR

¶63

Bengaluru. This would also augment the present situation."

¶64

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

¶65

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).

¶66

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

¶67

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:21887 WP No. 4317 of 2023

¶68

HC-KAR

¶69

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

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

¶72

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:21887 WP No. 4317 of 2023

¶73

HC-KAR

¶74

writ petition is liable to be allowed strictly aligning to the

¶75

operative portion of the said writ petition.

¶76

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

¶77

ORDER

¶78

i) The writ petition is allowed.

¶79

ii) The impugned demand notice dated 14.02.2023 issued by respondent No.4 as per Annexure-D is hereby set-aside.

¶80

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

¶81

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

¶82

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

¶83

10 -

¶84

NC: 2025:KHC:21887 WP No. 4317 of 2023

¶85

HC-KAR

¶86

to file an appeal against the reported judgment.

¶87

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.

¶88

Pending applications, if any, are also disposed off.

¶89

Sd/(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE

¶90

GSS List No.: 2 Sl No.: 13

M/S Uab Reality Private Limited v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Uab Reality 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

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

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

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

M/S Ample Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Nagaraju Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Nagaratna Vs the State of Karnataka