M/S Manne Constructions vs. The State Of Karnataka
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/s. Manne Constructions, represented by its GPA holder, filed a writ petition challenging the Karnataka Municipal Corporations and Certain Other Law (Amendment) Act, 2021 (Karnataka Act No. 01 of 2022), alleging it violated a previous High Court decision in W.P. No. 4601/2020. The petition also sought to quash specific sections of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961, and related notifications and circulars issued by the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP). A key demand was the quashing of a demand notice dated 23/08/2024, issued by the fourth respondent (Joint Director, Town Planning-South, BBMP), for various charges including ground rent, GST on ground rent, license fee, and fees related to construction deviations. The petitioner also sought a direction for the BBMP to issue an occupancy certificate.
Held
The Court allowed the writ petition, aligning its decision with a coordinate bench's judgment in W.P. No. 23086/2022 and connected matters. The coordinate bench had previously quashed and 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). It was declared that 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, apply only to development plans for plots exceeding 20,000 square meters. The court also held that fee should not be collected for subsequent development plans if already collected for change of land use or layout plan approval. The linkage of levies to market or guidance value was declared illegal. Consequently, all impugned circulars and demand notices giving effect to these rules were quashed. Clause 3.8 of the BBMP Building Bye-laws, 2003, concerning 'Ground Rent', was also quashed. The impugned demand notice dated 23.08.2024 (Annexure-A) was set aside. The BBMP was directed to issue an occupancy certificate in accordance with law, strictly adhering to the approved building plan, and to process the petitioner's application for the same. The issuance of the occupancy certificate was not to be withheld pending any appeal by the BBMP, but would be subject to the outcome of such an appeal.
Key Issues
1. Whether the Karnataka Municipal Corporations and Certain Other Law (Amendment) Act, 2021 (Karnataka Act No. 01 of 2022) is in violation of or contrary to the decision of this Hon'ble Court in W.P. No. 4601/2020? 2. Whether Section 18-A of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961, as amended, and Rules 37-A and 37-C of the Karnataka Planning Authority Rules, 1965, are applicable only to plots exceeding 20,000 square meters and not to smaller plots? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the impugned Act of 2021 was contrary to a prior High Court ruling. They contended that the demand notice issued by the BBMP was illegal, without jurisdiction, and arbitrary. They also sought the quashing of various statutory provisions, notifications, and circulars that formed the basis of the demand. The petitioner relied on the decision in W.P. No. 4601/2020 and sought directions for the issuance of an occupancy certificate. Revenue/State's Arguments: The judgment does not record specific arguments from the respondents. However, the court's decision was based on a coordinate bench's pronouncement which addressed similar issues.
Sections Cited
Section 18-A, Rule 37-A, Rule 37-C, Clause 3.8
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 the following reliefs:
Wherefore, it is respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to:
i) 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- Z) is in violation/contrary to the decision of this Hon'ble Court in W.P No.4601/2020. HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22801 ii) grant an order, direction or writ in the nature of Certiorari quashing Section 18-A of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961 brought into effect by Karnataka Act No. 23 of 2004 (Karnataka Town And Country Planning (Amendment) Act, 1998) as contained in (ANNEXURE-Q) insofar as section 18-A(i) and (iv) of the Karnataka Act No. 23 of 2004 is concerned;
iii) Grant an order, direction or writ in the nature of Certiorari quashing the Notification issued by the 1st respondent bearing no. UDD 3 TTP 2015 dated 25/02/2020 as contained in (ANNEXURE-P) insofar as the inserted rule 37-A and 37-C is concerned;
iv) issue a writ or order by way of certiorari quashing the circular dated 14/08/2020, bearing no. He.Ni.Ka.Pa.Ko/P.R/320/2020-21 issued by the Respondent No.3 (ANNEXURE-R) in so far the Petitioners are concerned.
v) Grant an order, direction or writ in the nature of Certiorari quashing the Notification issued by the 1st Respondent bearing no. UDD 23 TTP 2020 (E) dated 21/06/2021 as contained in (ANNEXURE-S) insofar as the inserted rule 37-A and 37-C is concerned;
vi) issue a writ or order by way of certiorari quashing the circular dated 24/06/2021, bearing no. He.Ni.Na.Yo/P.R/320/2020-21 issued by the respondent no.3 (Annexure-T) in so far the Petitioners are concerned.
vii) issue a writ or order by way of certiorari quashing the demand notice dated 23/08/2024, bearing No.BBMP/Addi.Dir/JD South/0476/12-13 issued by the fourth respondent produced hereto as Annexure-A for demand of ground rent, GST on ground rent, license fee, security fee, difference in BUA area Additional construction in basement floors, Additional construction in terrace floor and building occupied without obtaining occupancy certificate as illegal without juri iction and arbitrary.
viii) issue a writ or order or direction by way of mandamus directing the Respondent No.3 and 4 BBMP to issue occupancy certificate for payment of Ground rent, GST on Ground rent, license fee, security fee, difference HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22801 in BUA area Additional construction in basement floors, Additional construction in terrace floor and building occupied without obtaining occupancy certificate and ix) 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.
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; "ORDER (i) The writ petitions are partly allowed. (ii) The Karnataka Municipal Corporations and Certain Other Law (Amendment) Act, 2021 (Karnataka Act No.01 of 2022), is hereby quashed and set aside. HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22801 (iii) The Karnataka Municipal Corporations and Certain Other Law (Amendment) Act, 2023, (Karnataka Act No.37 of 2024), is hereby quashed and set aside. (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. (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. (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. (vii) Consequently, all the impugned Circulars which seek to give effect to the Rules 37-A and 37-C of HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22801 the Karnataka Planning Authority Rules, 1965, are hereby quashed and set aside. (viii) It is hereby declared that Clause 3.8 of the Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Building Bye- laws, 2003, providing for ‘Ground Rent’, is illegal and are accordingly quashed and set aside. (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."
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). HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22801
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.
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. HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22801
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.
In view of the above, this Court proceeds to pass the following; ORDER (i) The writ petition is allowed. (ii) The impugned demand notice dated 23.08.2024 issued by respondent No.4 as per Annexure-A is hereby set-aside. (iii) Respondent - BBMP is hereby directed to issue Occupancy Certificate in accordance HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22801 with law in compliance of the construction strictly adhering to the approved building plan. (iv) Respondent - BBMP is 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 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. Pending applications, if any, are also disposed off. (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE HDK List No.: 2 Sl No.: 16
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.