M/S Narya Constructions PVT LTD vs. The State Of Karnataka
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/s. Narya Constructions Pvt. Ltd., filed a writ petition challenging the Karnataka Municipal Corporations and Certain Other Law (Amendment) Act, 2021 (Karnataka Act No.01 of 2022) and an office order and demand notice issued by the Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) and its Assistant Director (Town Planning). The petitioner sought to declare the Act as ultra vires and in violation of a previous High Court decision. The demand notice, dated January 17, 2024, issued by Respondent No.4 (Assistant Director, Town Planning), sought to recover Ground rent, GST on Ground rent, and Scrutiny fee. The petitioner also sought a direction to issue an Occupancy Certificate without insisting on these charges.
Held
The Court held that the issues raised in the present writ petition were squarely covered by the binding decisions of Co-ordinate Benches in W.P. No.23086/2022 (M/s Sapthagiri Shelters) and W.P. No.36017/2018 (Sunderam Shetty). In Sunderam Shetty, levies of Ground Rent, License Fee, Building License Fee, and Scrutiny Fee under relevant bye-laws were declared ultra vires, and government circulars were quashed. In M/s Sapthagiri Shelters, Karnataka Act No.01 of 2022 and Karnataka Act No.37 of 2024 were struck down for illegally linking fees to market/guidance values, and Clause 3.8 of the BBMP Building Bye-laws, 2003, pertaining to Ground Rent, was declared invalid. Consequently, the Court found no need for separate adjudication and allowed the petition. The impugned demand notice dated 17.01.2024 was set aside, and the BBMP was directed to issue the Occupancy Certificate in accordance with law, strictly adhering to the approved building plan, without withholding it due to any contemplated appeal.
Key Issues
1. Whether the Karnataka Municipal Corporations and Certain Other Law (Amendment) Act, 2021 (Karnataka Act No.01 of 2022) is ultra vires the Constitution in so far as it concerns the petitioner? 2. Whether the said Amendment Act is in violation or contrary to the decision of this Hon'ble Court in W.P. No.4601/2020 (LB-BMP)? 3. Whether the Office Order No.HaNiNaYo/PR/461/2021-22 dated 09/03/2022 and the demand notice dated 17/01/2024, demanding Ground rent, GST on Ground rent, and Scrutiny fee, are illegal, without jurisdiction, and arbitrary? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the Amendment Act and the subsequent demands were ultra vires and contrary to established High Court precedents. They relied on previous judgments of this Court that had dealt with similar levies. Respondents' Arguments: The judgment does not record specific arguments made by the respondents. It notes that the issues raised were squarely covered by previous binding decisions.
Sections Cited
Section 45-B of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957, Rule 37-A of the Karnataka Planning Authority Rules, 1965, Clause 3.8 of the BBMP Building Bye-laws, 2003
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Heard together (2 matters)
Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORAL ORDER
The captioned petition is filed seeking following reliefs: “i) 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-H) as being ultra vires the Constitution in so far the Petitioner is concerned.
ii) To declare that Karnataka Municipal Corporations and Certain Other Law (Amendment) Act, 2021 (Karnataka Act No.01 of 2022) notified on 13/01/2022 (ANNEXURE-H) is in violation/contrary to the decision of this Hon'ble Court in W.P.No.4601/2020 (LB-BMP).
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-J) in so far the Petitioner is concerned.
iv) issue a writ or order by way of certiorari quashing the demand notice dated 17/01/2024 bearing No.A.D.T.P/Bo.Va/LP/0587/17-18/23-24, issued by the Respondent No.4 (Annexure-D) for demanding in so far it is concerned to Ground rent, GST on Ground rent and Scrutiny fee as illegal, without juri iction and arbitrary.
v) issue a writ or order or direction by way of mandamus directing the Respondent No.3 and 4 BBMP to issue the Occupancy certificate for the residential multi- HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23168 storied apartment constructed on the Schedule Property without insisting the Ground rent, GST on Ground rent and Scrutiny fee; and 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.”
The Co-ordinate Benches of this Court, in W.P.No.23086/2022 and connected matters (herein referred to as “M/s Sapthagiri Shelters”) as well as W.P.No.36017/2018 and connected matters(herein referred to as “Sunderam Shetty”), have comprehensively adjudicated the issue involved and settled the controversy.
In Sunderam Shetty and connected cases, the Co- ordinate Bench declared the levies of Ground Rent, License Fee, Building License Fee, and Scrutiny Fee under the relevant bye- laws as ultra vires the Act and quashed the Government Circulars dated 04.09.2015, 27.01.2017, and 30.03.2017. 4. Similarly, in M/s Sapthagiri Shelters and connected matters, the Co-ordinate Bench struck down the Karnataka Act No.01 of 2022 and Karnataka Act No.37 of 2024, holding that linking fees under Rule 37-A of the Karnataka Planning HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23168 Authority Rules, 1965 to market/guidance value under Section 45-B of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 is illegal. It further quashed all related Circulars and declared Clause 3.8 of the BBMP Building Bye-laws, 2003, pertaining to Ground Rent, as invalid.
The issues raised in the present writ petition are squarely covered by the above binding decisions, wherein the relevant bye-laws and government circulars have been set aside.
In light of the authoritative pronouncements, the present petition does not warrant separate adjudication and is liable to be allowed in terms of the operative directions issued in the aforesaid writ petitions.
Accordingly, this Court proceeds to pass the following: ORDER (i) The writ petition is allowed.
(ii) The impugned demand notice dated 17.01.2024 issued by respondent No.4 as per Annexure-D is hereby set-aside. HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23168 (iii) Respondent - BBMP is hereby directed to issue Occupancy Certificate in accordance with law in compliance of the construction strictly adhering to the approved building plan.
(iv) Respondent-BBMP is hereby directed to forthwith process the petitioner’s application seeking occupancy certificate, strictly in accordance with law.
(v) It is made clear that the issuance of the occupancy certificate shall not be withheld merely on the ground that the BBMP is contemplating to file an appeal against the reported judgment.
(vi) If the occupancy certificate is issued, the same shall be subject to the outcome of any appeal that may be filed by the BBMP against the said judgment. (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE
MBM List No.: 2 Sl No.: 9
Reproduced from the public record of the Karnataka High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.