BharatTaxGST

Mr Zamir Mirza vs. State Of Karnataka

Original PDF →
WP/1/2019HC KarnatakaGSTCNR KAHC01003951201927 February 2025Bench: N S SANJAY GOWDA6 pages
For Petitioner: SMT. MANEESHA KANGOVI., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SANJAY NAIR., ADVOCATEFor Respondent: SRI. BOPANNA BELLIAPPA., AGA FOR R-1; SRI. PAWAN KUMAR., ADVOCATE FOR R-2 & 3; SRI. C.V.KIRAN., ADVOCATE FOR R-4

No AI summary yet for this judgment.

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:8641 WP No. 1 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA WRIT PETITION NO. 1 OF 2019 (LB-BMP) BETWEEN: 1. MR ZAMIR MIRZA S/O MR SIRDAR MIRZA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS 2. MS KIYANA MIRZA D/O MR ZAMIR MIRZA AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS 3. MS ZYLA MIRZA D/O MR ZAMIR MIRZA AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS ALL ARE RESIDING AT A-4, MAYFAIR APARTMENTS 31 BERLIE STREET, LANGFORD TOWN BANGALORE-560 025 REPRESENTD BY THEIR POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER MFAR DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT,1956 HAVING ITS OFFICE AT #3 LEVELLE ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY MR YATHISH KUMAR …PETITIONERS (BY SMT. MANEESHA KANGOVI., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SANJAY NAIR., ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:8641 WP No. 1 of 2019 AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 4TH FLOOR, VIKAS SOUDHA AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560 001. 2. BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE N R SQUARE, BANGALORE-560 002 REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER 3. JOINT DIRECTOR TOWN PLANNING (NORTH) BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE N R SQUARE, BENGALURU-560 002 4. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, PALACE ROAD, SADASHIVANAGAR., BANGALORE BY ITS COMMISSIONER …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. BOPANNA BELLIAPPA., AGA FOR R-1; SRI. PAWAN KUMAR., ADVOCATE FOR R-2 & 3; SRI. C.V.KIRAN., ADVOCATE FOR R-4) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 10.04.2018 (ANNEXURE-A) ISSUED BY THE R-3, SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO THE CLAIM MADE FOR PAYMENT OF CROUND RENT AMOUNTING TO SUM OF Rs.18,53,585/- (RUPEES EIGHTEEN LAKHS FIFTY THREE THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED AND EIGHTY FIVE ONLY) AND Rs.1,66,823/- (RUPEES ONE LAKSH SIXTY SIX THOUSAND - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:8641 WP No. 1 of 2019 EIGHT HUNDRED AND TWENTY THREE ONLY) TOWARDS CGST ON GROUND RENT AND ALSO THE DEMAND MADE BY RESPONDENT No.3 TO PRODUCE REGISTERED RELINQUISHMENT DEED SURRENDING THE SCHEDULE-B PROPERTY FREE OF COST TO BBMP, AS A PRE-REQUISITE CONDITION FOR ISSUANCE OF PLAN SANCTION AND BUILDING LICENSE CONCERNING SCHEDULE-A PROPERTY, ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA

ORAL ORDER

1.

This writ petition is filed challenging the demand notice issued by the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike ('the BBMP') whereby a sum of Rs.18,53,585/- is claimed as ground rent and a sum of Rs.1,66,823/- claimed towards the CGST on the said ground rent amount.

2.

A challenge is also made to the demand made by the BBMP to execute a registered relinquishment deed NC: 2025:KHC:8641 surrendering the portion of the property in which there was a proposed widening of the road.

3.

A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the judgment rendered in W.P. No.9408 of 20201, followed by this Court in WP No.33709 of 20242, has held that the planning authorities and the BBMP cannot demand conveyance of a portion of the property for which there is a proposal to widen the road at the time of considering the grant of a sanction to the building plan.

4.

In that view of the matter, the prayer insofar as it relates to the demand of the BBMP to execute a relinquishment deed in respect of the portion of the property over which there is a proposed widening the of the road cannot be sustained and the same is quashed.

1 WP No.9408 of 2020 and connected cases, disposed of on 17.01.2022 (Dr.Arun Kumar B.C. vs. State of Karnataka and others) Coram: Hon’ble Mr.Justice Hemanth of Karnataka and others), Coram: Hon’ble Mr.Justice N.S.Sanjay Gowda NC: 2025:KHC:8641

5.

In respect of the other prayer claiming ground rent, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner would abide by the decision to be rendered by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, which has reserved the matter regarding a challenge to the ground rent.

6.

Consequently, the writ petition is allowed in part.

7.

It is held that, that portion of the order of BBMP calling upon the petitioner to execute the relinquishment deed in respect of the portion of the property which is proposed for widening of the road shall stand quashed.

8.

The petitioner shall be bound by the judgment that would be rendered by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court insofar as it relates to the demand for ground rent.

9.

It is made clear that though the demand of BBMP to execute relinquishment deed is quashed, NC: 2025:KHC:8641 nevertheless, the petitioner shall not erect any structures on this portion of the land. (N S SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE

RK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 76

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.