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

M/S. KRISHNA E CAMPUS PVT LTD NO.344, NIRAML, RMV 2^ND STAGE, 2^ND BLOCK, 1^ST CROSS, RMV EXTENSION, BENGALURU 3 560 094 REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR SRI RAMESH S BULCHANDANI

¶10

&PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. RAJU.S., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by AL BHAGYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

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

¶15

THE BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE N.R.SQUARE, BENGLAURU-560 002 REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER.

¶16

THE JOINT DIRECTOR TOWN PLANNING NORTH

¶17

2 -

¶18

NC: 2025:KHC:21305 WP No. 4492 of 2022

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE N.R.SQUARE, BENGLAURU-560 002.

¶21

&RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI.BOPANNA.B., AGA FOR R1; SRI.MANJUNATH V. RAYAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3)

¶23

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF CONSTITUTION OF INIDA PRAYING TO-QUASH THE DEMAND NOTICE DTD 16.02.2022 VIDE ANNX-C ISSUED BY R-3 IN SO FAR AS THE DEMAND OF RS.75,88,095/- TOWARDS GROUND RENT AND CGST AND SGST, RS.13,65,857/- TOWARDS SCRUTINY FEE RS.3,03,524/- IS CONCERNED AND ETC.

¶24

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 8B9 GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶25

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶26

ORAL ORDER

¶27

Petitioner in the captioned petition has sought the following reliefs:

¶28

(a) Issue a writ of certiorari or similar writ or order or direction to quash the demand notice No.BBMP /Add.Dir /JD NORTH/ 0063/2019-20, dated 16.02.2022 vide ANNEXURE-C issued by respondent No.3 in so far as the demand of Rs. 75,88,095/towards Ground Rent and CGST and SGST, Rs. 13,65,857/- towards scrutiny fee Rs.3,03,524/- is concerned.

¶29

(b) Issue writ of mandamus or similar writ or order or direction directing the respondent Nos.2 and 3 to issue occupancy Certificate pursuant to the demand notice No.BBMP/ Add.Dir/JD NORTH/0063/2019-20,

¶30

3 -

¶31

NC: 2025:KHC:21305 WP No. 4492 of 2022

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

dated 16.02.2022 vide ANNEXURE-C issued by the respondent No.3 without insisting for payment of amount mentioned above.

¶34

(c) Issue writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents 2 and 3 to collect the fees as specified in the Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Building Byelaws 2003 only;

¶35

(d) Declare that the Ground rent levied on the petitioners for obtaining Occupancy Certificate for Block A is bad in law, since the petitioner is not using the public land / property, for stocking of building materials for construction purpose.

¶36

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

¶37

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).

¶38

4 -

¶39

NC: 2025:KHC:21305 WP No. 4492 of 2022

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

Therefore, this Court deems it fit to cull out the operative portion of the order, which reads as under;

¶42

"ORDER

¶43

(i) The writ petitions are partly allowed.

¶44

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

¶45

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

¶46

(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 8Development Plan9 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.

¶47

(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 8Development Plan9 in terms of the 8Note9 found below TABLE I of Rule 37-A of the Karnataka Planning Authority Rules, 1965.

¶48

5 -

¶49

NC: 2025:KHC:21305 WP No. 4492 of 2022

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

(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 8market value9 or 8guidance value9 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.

¶52

(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.

¶53

(viii) It is hereby declared that Clause 3.8 of the Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Building Bye- laws, 2003, providing for 8Ground Rent9, is illegal and are accordingly quashed and set aside.

¶54

(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 8One Time Settlement9 and settle the levy and collect the fee generally acceptable to the citizens of Bengaluru. This would also augment the present situation."

¶55

In the present writ petition, the core issue raised

¶56

stands substantially covered and decided by the authoritative pronouncement of the coordinate bench,

¶57

6 -

¶58

NC: 2025:KHC:21305 WP No. 4492 of 2022

¶59

HC-KAR

¶60

wherein the writ petitions were partly allowed and several consequential reliefs were granted. The Hon9ble 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).

¶61

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.

¶62

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:21305 WP No. 4492 of 2022

¶63

HC-KAR

¶64

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.

¶65

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.

¶66

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

¶67

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:21305 WP No. 4492 of 2022

¶68

HC-KAR

¶69

ORDER

¶70

(i) The writ petition is allowed. (ii) The impugned demand notice dated 16.02.2022 issued by respondent No.3 as per Annexure-C is hereby set-aside.

¶71

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

¶72

(iv) Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are hereby directed to issue Occupancy Certificate in accordance with law in compliance of the construction strictly adhering to the approved building plan.

¶73

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

¶74

9 -

¶75

NC: 2025:KHC:21305 WP No. 4492 of 2022

¶76

HC-KAR

¶77

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

¶78

(vii) If the building licence, sanction plan and occupancy certificate are issued, the same shall be subjected to the outcome of any appeal that may be filed by the BBMP against the judgment.

¶79

Pending applications, if any, are also disposed off.

¶80

SD/(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE

¶81

PB

¶82

List No.: 2 Sl No.: 11

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

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

Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. Vs the State of Karnataka