Mr Mohammed Ghaise Vs State of Karnataka

REPRESENTED BY THEIR GPA HOLDER M/S. GOYAL HARIYANA CONSTRUCTIONS A REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT UNIT NO.206 BARTON CENTRE, NO.84 M.G. ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS ONE OF THE PARTNERS M/S. RENIWAL CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD. BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY/PARTNER SRI. SANJEEV RENIWAL.

¶13

…PETITIONERS

¶14

(BY SRI VIVEKANANDA T.P, ADVOCATE)

¶15

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:20515 WP No. 9058 of 2023

¶16

HC-KAR

¶17

AND:

¶18

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

¶19

STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF PARLIMENTARY AFFAIRS AND LEGISLATION VIDHANA SOUDHA DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE-560 001.

¶20

STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR VIKASA SOUDHA BANGALORE-560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶21

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

¶22

THE JOINT DIRECTOR TOWN PLANNING-NORTH BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE N.R. SQUARE BANGALORE-560 002.

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI BOPANNA B, AGA FOR R.1 TO R.3; SRI N.R.JAGADEESWARA, ADVOCATE FOR R.4 AND R.5.)

¶25

3 -

¶26

NC: 2025:KHC:20515 WP No. 9058 of 2023

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE KARNATAKA MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS AND CERTAIN OTHER LAW (AMENDMENT) ACT, 2021 ACT NO.1 OF 2022 DATED 13.01.2022 ENACTED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 PUBLISHED THROUGH NOTIFICATION BEARING NO.DPAL 50 SHASANA 2021 GAZETTED ON 13.01.2022 AT ANNEXURE-G DECLARING IT TO BE ULTRAVIRES AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL, ETC.

¶29

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

¶30

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶31

ORAL ORDER

¶32

The petitioners are seeking for the following reliefs;

¶33

"i) Issue a writ of certiorari or similar writ or order or direction to quash the Karnataka Municipal Corporations and Certain Other Law (Amendment) Act, 2021 Act No. 1/2022 dated 13.01.2022 enacted by the second respondent published through notification bearing No.DPAL 50 SHASANA 2021 gazetted on 13.01.2022 at Annexure-G declaring it to be ultravires and unconstitutional.

¶34

ii) Issue writ of certiorari or similar writ or order or direction to quash the Office Order bearing No.ADTP/PR/461/2021-22 dated 09.03.2022 Issued by the 4th respondent at Annexure -H;

¶35

iii) Issue a writ of certiorari to quash the demand note/Challan No.BBMP/EoDB/CH/0212/23-24; LP No.BBMP/ Addl.Dir/JDNOTH/0101/22-23 dated 03.04.2023 at

¶36

4 -

¶37

NC: 2025:KHC:20515 WP No. 9058 of 2023

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

Annexure -D issued by the Respondent No.5 in so far as demand towards scrutiny fee of Rs.2,49,865/-, license fee of Rs.49,97,292/-, Betterment fee for building of Rs.9,70,725/Betterment Fee for Sital Area of Rs.13,81,556/-, security deposit of Rs.48,53,625/-, Ground rent of Rs.29,48,402/(including CGST and SGST), Cess towards BWSSB in a sum of Rs.1,31,248/-Cess towards Ring Road in a sum of Rs.1,31,248/-, Cess towards Improving the slums in a sum of Rs.65,624/-, cess towards MRTS in a sum of Rs.6,56,239/-, 5% levy on service charges in a sum of Rs.51,808/- are concerned so also labour cess of Rs. 74,59,000/-

¶40

iv) Issue Writ of Certiorari or similar Writ, order or direction to quash the Circular bearing No.He. Ni.Ka.Pa.Ko/ P.R/320/2020-21 dated 14.08.2020 at Annexure-J issued by the 4th Respondent;

¶41

v) 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.

¶42

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

¶43

vii) Issue any other appropriate writ or order or direction to the respondents deemed fit in the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity."

¶44

5 -

¶45

NC: 2025:KHC:20515 WP No. 9058 of 2023

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

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;

¶48

"ORDER

¶49

(i) The writ petitions are partly allowed.

¶50

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

¶51

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

¶52

(iv) It is hereby declared that the provisions contained in Section 18-A of the Karnataka Town and

¶53

6 -

¶54

NC: 2025:KHC:20515 WP No. 9058 of 2023

¶55

HC-KAR

¶56

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.

¶57

(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.

¶58

(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.

¶59

(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.

¶60

(viii) It is hereby declared that Clause 3.8 of the Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Building Bye- laws, 2003,

¶61

7 -

¶62

NC: 2025:KHC:20515 WP No. 9058 of 2023

¶63

HC-KAR

¶64

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

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

¶68

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:20515 WP No. 9058 of 2023

¶69

HC-KAR

¶70

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.

¶71

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.

¶72

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

¶73

9 -

¶74

NC: 2025:KHC:20515 WP No. 9058 of 2023

¶75

HC-KAR

¶76

independently, as it is squarely covered by the binding

¶77

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

¶78

writ petition is liable to be allowed strictly aligning to the operative portion of the said writ petition.

¶79

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

¶80

ORDER

¶81

(i) The writ petition is allowed.

¶82

(ii) The impugned demand notice dated 03.04.2023 issued by respondent No.5 as per Annexure-D is hereby set-aside.

¶83

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

¶84

(iv) Respondent - BBMP is hereby directed to forthwith process the petitioner's application seeking building license and

¶85

10 -

¶86

NC: 2025:KHC:20515 WP No. 9058 of 2023

¶87

HC-KAR

¶88

sanction of the building plan, strictly in accordance with law.

¶89

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

¶90

(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.

¶91

Pending applications, if any, are also disposed off.

¶92

Sd/(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE

¶93

NBM

¶94

List No.: 2 Sl No.: 11

Mr Mohammed Ghaise v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr Mohammed Ghaise 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

K Harikrishna Vs Smt Kanakamma

Sri Ramachandregowda @ Ramachandra N Vs Sri Raju

The Chief Secretary Vs M/S Sri Byrava Civil Engineering Works

Smt v v Jyothi Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Renuka R Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Sathyanarayan Vs the Bruhath Bangalore Mahanagara Palike