Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 14816
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM, J
M/S. SOBHA LIMITED – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA – Respondent
WRIT PETITION NO. 28071 OF 2024 (LB-BMP)
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI. MADHUKAR M DESHPANDE
For the Respondents: SPOORTHI, HCGP FOR R1 & R2, SRI. K.B. MONESH KUMAR
Legislative provisions impacting property rights can be declared unconstitutional if found to violate constitutional rights and established judicial precedents.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Unconstitutionality of legislation - The petitioner seeks to declare the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike and Certain Law (Amendment) Act, 2023 as unconstitutional for infringing the right to property under Article 300A and violating Article 14 - Precedents established in previous cases declaring certain levies as ultra vires are referenced. (Paras 2, 3, 4, 5)
(B) Jurisprudence - Binding judgments - The court clarifies that authority from co-ordinate benches’ decisions should be followed in similar matters - The petition does not warrant separate adjudication due to prior settlements. (Paras 4, 5)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner argues against the provisions of the Karnataka Acts regarding property rights, claiming they violate constitutional provisions, relying on past judgments to support the claims.
Findings of Court:
The court allows the writ petition, quashing the impugned demand notice, ordering compliance with the approved building plan.
Issues: The primary issue addressed is whether newly introduced legislations infringe upon established rights, especially prior judgments ruling against similar levies.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reinforces that established decisions from co-ordinate benches are binding, advocating procedural adherence to previously settled law.
Result: Writ petition allowed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenging the constitutionality of amendments. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. previous judgments guide current decision-making. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. court's ruling affirms prior legal authority. (Para 5 , 6) |
ORAL ORDER
This petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:-
“1. Declare that the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike and Certain Law (Amendment) Act, 2023 (Karnataka Act 37 of 2024) under Annexure-A to this writ petition as unconstitutional, manifestly arbitrary, unreasonable, unenforceable and unreasonable restriction on right to property being expropriatory and infringement of constitutional right to property under
2. Declare that the provisions of Sections 299A and 299C inserted into the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 (Karnataka Act No.14 of 1977) with effect from 4th September 2015 and also Sections 240A and 240C inserted into the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike 2020 (Karnataka Act No.53 of 2020) with effect from 11.01.2021 (Annexure-B) as unconstitutional, manifestly arbitrary, unreasonable, unenforceable, an unreasonable restriction on right to property being expropriatary, an infringement of constitutional right to property under
3. Quash demand notice bearing No.BBMP/Addl.Dir/JDNORTH/LP/0455/2014-
15 dated 28.09.2024 under Annexure-C to the writ petition, issued by the Respondent No.4.
4. Grant such other and further relief/s as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case in the interests of justice and equity.”
2. 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.
3. 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. and 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 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. Accordingly, this Court proceeds to pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The writ petition is allowed.
(ii) The impugned demand notice dated 28.09.2024 issued by respondent No.4 as per Annexure-C is hereby set-aside. (iii) Respondent Nos.3 and 4 - BBMP are 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 - BBMP are directed to forthwith process the petitioner’s application seeking occupancy certificate, 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
