Dismissed¶¶50

Astrazeneca Pharma India Ltd., v. the Urban Development Department

Karnataka HC11 Mar 2026WA/236/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Improvement costs; BBMP/Bruhat (Bengaluru) Mahanagara Palike; KIADB-allotted properties within BBMP jurisdiction; Circular dated 01.07.2014; Rule 6, Recovery of Improvement Expenses Rules 2009 exemption claim rejected; demand notice dated 07.08.2014 for Rs.7,08,24,430 at Rs.250/sq.m; finality of Co-ordinate Bench judgment dated 26.08.2016 (W.P.Nos.56465 & 56724-734/2024); writ appeal dismissed without costs; Karnataka High Court, 11.03.2026; WA No. 236 of 2025 (LB-BMP).

What did the court decide?

None; the appeal is dismissed without cost, so the demand notice dated 07.08.2014 founded on the Circular dated 01.07.2014 stands; pending I.As, if any, stand disposed of. ¶¶50

Astrazeneca Pharma India Ltd., Vs the Urban… — Company and Corporate | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the appeal is dismissed without cost, so the demand notice dated 07.08.2014 founded on the Circular dated 01.07.2014 stands; pending I.As, if any, stand disposed of.

¶¶50

Issue for consideration

Whether properties allotted by KIADB but now situated within BBMP's jurisdictional limits are liable to pay improvement costs under the Circular dated 01.07.2014, notwithstanding the claimed exemption under Rule 6 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act (Recovery of Improvement Expenses) Rules, 2009. +1 more

¶¶38

Court's answer

Once properties allotted by the KIADB come within the jurisdictional limit of BBMP, the Circular dated 01.07.2014 makes all properties, including KIADB-allotted properties, liable to pay the improvement costs; the claimed Rule 6 exemption does not avail the appellant.

¶¶44

Ratio / Principle

There is no justification to interfere with the impugned judgment and order, since the legality and validity of the Circular has already been upheld (and the upholding judgment has attained finality), and it is not in dispute that the petitioner's properties, though allotted by the KIADB, come within the jurisdictional limit of BBMP.

¶¶48

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Appeal (LB-BMP), High Court of Karnataka, 11.03.2026 (Per D K Singh, J.; Coram: D K Singh and T.M. Nadaf JJ.) — BBMP improvement-cost demand on KIADB-allotted land. The Division Bench dismissed the appeal impugning the Single Judge's order dated 10.01.2025 in W.P.No.44447/2014. The appellant, allotted properties by KIADB which later came within BBMP limits, was by notice dated 07.08.2014 required to pay improvement cost at Rs.250/- per square meter, totalling Rs.7,08,24,430/-, under Circular dated 01.07.2014. Held: (i) once properties come within BBMP's jurisdictional limit, the Circular renders all properties, including KIADB allottees, liable to pay improvement costs, the claimed Rule 6 exemption under the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act (Recovery of Improvement Expenses) Rules, 2009 notwithstanding; (ii) the Circular's validity already stood upheld by judgment dated 26.08.2016 in W.P.Nos.56465 & 56724-734/2024, which attained finality unchallenged, leaving no justification to interfere. Appeal dismissed without cost; pending I.As disposed of.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:14619-DB WA No. 236 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF WRIT APPEAL NO. 236 OF 2025 (LB-BMP)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

ASTRAZENECA PHARMA INDIA LTD., A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER COMPANIES ACT 1956 AND HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT BLOCK N1, 12^TH FLOOR, MANYATA EMBASSY BUSINESS PARK, RACHAENAHALLI, OUTER RING ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 045, REPRESENTED BY HEAD-LEGAL, MR. PANKAJ JAIN

¶11

…APPELLANT

¶12

Digitally signed by REKHA R Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

(BY SRI. KUMAR N.J., ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

THE URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE - 560 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,

¶16

BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, BANGALORE - 560 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER

¶17

ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER, BYATARAYANAPURA SUB-DIVISION,

¶18

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:14619-DB WA No. 236 of 2025

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

YELAHANKA REGION, BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, BANGALORE - 560 092.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI.G.S. ARUNA HCGP FOR R1, SRI. B.S. SATYANAND., ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3)

¶23

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGEMENT AND ORDER DATED:10.01.2025 IN WP NO.44447/2014 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE AND CONSEQUENTLY QUASH THE CIRCULAR DATED:01.07.2024 BARING NO.UA(KAM)PR/3356/2011-12 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 AND DEMAND NOTICE BEARING NO.BBMP: YA REG/BYA.SUB.DIV 89/10-11 DATED: 07.08.2014 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3 AND ETC.

¶24

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶25

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and

¶26

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF

¶27

¶28

NC: 2026:KHC:14619-DB WA No. 236 of 2025

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶31

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH)

¶32

This intra Court appeal has been filed impugning the order dated 10.01.2025 passed by the writ Court in W.P.No.44447/2014 instituted by the appellant. The petitioner has been issued a notice dated 07.08.2014 ( Annexure-B ), asking the petitioner to pay the improvement cost of Rs.250/- per Square meter, in a total sum of Rs.7,08,24,430/- to BBMP with 7 days from the date of receipt of the notice.

¶33

The learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner submits that the said notice has been issued on the basis of the Circular dated 01.07.2014. The validity of the said Circular has been upheld by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 26.08.2016 passed in W.P.Nos.56465 & 56724-734/2024. The said judgment dated 26.08.2016 passed in W.P.Nos.56465 & 56724734/2024 has attained finality as nobody has challenged the said judgment.

¶34

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:14619-DB WA No. 236 of 2025

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits

¶37

that the Circular dated 01.07.2014, is contrary to Rule 6 of

¶38

the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act (Recovery of Improvement Expenses) Rules, 2009 ('Rules 2009' for short), inasmuch as under Rule 6, the properties allotted by the KIADB are exempted from payment of improvement charges. This vital aspect has been missed by the learned Single Judge while upholding the circular dated 01.07.2014. However, Mr.B.S.Sathyanand, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3-BBMP submits that the Rules, 2009 were applicable to the sites/properties which were situated outside the boundaries of BDA. All these properties including the petitioner's properties have now come within the jurisdiction of BBMP, and therefore, the Circular has been issued levying improvement costs on all properties situated within the jurisdiction of BBMP.

¶39

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:14619-DB WA No. 236 of 2025

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

It is further submitted that once the Circular

¶42

has been upheld by this Court and the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge has attained finality, the petitioner cannot challenge the very same Circular in the writ appeal before this Court.

¶43

We have considered the submissions advanced

¶44

by the appellant/petitioner and respondents. It is not in dispute that the properties were allotted to the petitioner by KIADB. These properties have now come within the jurisdictional limit of BBMP. When once the properties have come within the jurisdictional limit of the BBMP, the Circular dated 01.07.2014 makes it clear that all properties including the properties allotted by KIADB would be liable to pay the improvement costs. The said Circular has been upheld by learned Single judge in its order dated 26.08.2016 passed in W.P.No.56465 and 56724-735/2014.

¶45

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:14619-DB WA No. 236 of 2025

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

We therefore find no justification to interfere

¶48

with the impugned judgment and order, inasmuch as the legality and the validity of the Circular has already been upheld and it is not in dispute that the petitioner's properties though allotted by the KIADB, come within the jurisdictional limit of BBMP. We therefore dismiss this

¶49

appeal, however, without cost.

¶50

In view of dismissal of appeal, pending I.As if any, shall stand disposed of.

¶51

Sd/(D K SINGH) JUDGE

¶52

Sd/(T.M.NADAF) JUDGE

¶53

RR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 27 ct-vn

Astrazeneca Pharma India Ltd., v. the Urban Development Department

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Astrazeneca Pharma India Ltd., v. the Urban Development Department

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

Sri Lingaiah Vs the State of Karnataka

Ramakrishnappa Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Munihanumaiah Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Nagendrappa (Chowdappa) Vs the State of Karnataka

K F Noor Basha Vs Mr S Moinudeen

B v Shivashankar Vs the Tahasildar