M/S Darshita Southern INDIA Happy Homes PVT LTD vs. The State Of Karnataka
Original PDF →No AI summary yet for this judgment.
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORAL ORDER
The captioned petition is filed seeking the following reliefs: A. Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other order appropriate writ or order to quash the entire Karnataka Municipal Corporations and certain other law (Amendment) Act, 2021 (Karnataka Act 01 of 2022) bearing No. DPAL 50SHASANA 2021 issued by Respondent No.1 notified on 13.01.2022 issued by respondent No.1 as the same is ultra vires of the Constitution. (Annexure-A) B. Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other order appropriate writ or order to quash the Office order bearing No. HaNiNaYo/PR/461/2021-22 dated 09.03.2022 issued by Respondent No.4 as the same is illegal and highly arbitrary.(Annexure-B) C. Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other order appropriate writ or order to quash the entire Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike and certain other law (Amendment) Act, 2023 HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20944 (Karnataka Act 37 of 2024) bearing No. DPAL 36 SHASANA, 2023 notified on 16.08.2024, issued by the Respondent No.1, as the same is ultra vires of the Constitution. (Annexure- C) D. Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other writ, order to set aside the demand notice issued by Respondent No. 5 dated 09.09.2024 bearing No. BBMP/Addl. Dir/JD South/0083/17- 18 (Annexure - D). E. Issue writ declaring that the action of the Respondent No. 5 in insisting on payment of ground rent amounting to Rs.9,21,99,530/- along with CGST and SGST calculated at 18% amounting to Rs.1,65,95,916/- and scrutiny fee amounting to Rs.58,67,243/- are concerned. by the Petitioner vide demand note dated 09.09.2024 bearing No. BBMP/Addl. Dir/JD South/0083/17-18 as highly arbitrary and illegal (Annexure - D). F. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any writ, or order, directing the respondent No. 5 to issue occupancy certificate without insisting on payment of ground rent amounting to Rs.9,21,99,530/- along with CGST and SGST HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20944 calculated at 18% amounting to Rs.1,65,95,916/- and scrutiny fee amounting to Rs.58,67,243/- are concerned. G. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any writ, or order, declaring the Ground Rent, GST, scrutiny fee, and various other fees and cesses levied on the petitioner for obtaining occupancy certificate is bad in law. H. Grant such other relief that this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the above case.
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). HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20944 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. (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. HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20944 (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 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, HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20944 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).
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. HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20944
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.
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; HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20944 ORDER
(i) The writ petition is allowed. (ii) The impugned demand notice dated 09.09.2024 issued by respondent No.5 as per Annexure-D is hereby set-aside. (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 Nos.3 and 4 are hereby directed to forthwith process the petitioner's application, 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 occupation certificate is issued, the same shall be subjected to the outcome of any appeal that may be filed by the BBMP against the judgment. HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20944 (vii) Insofar as payments made, petitioners shall make a representation to Respondent-BBMP for the refund. Respondent-BBMP shall consider the same and pass orders in accordance with law. Pending applications, if any, are also disposed off. (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE
KLY
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.