Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 14824
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM, J
M/S. SOBHA LIMITED – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA – Respondent
WRIT PETITION NO. 34896 OF 2024
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI. MADHUKAR M DESHPANDE
For the Respondents: SPOORTHI, HCGP FOR R1 & R2, SRI. K.B. MONESH KUMAR
Legislative amendments affecting property rights deemed unconstitutional and unenforceable, reaffirming the importance of adhering to constitutional principles and legal standards.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 14 and 300A - Challenge to Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike and Certain Law (Amendment) Act, 2023, as unconstitutional, manifestly arbitrary and unreasonable restriction on right to property. (Paras 1, 3, 4, 5, 6).
(B) Provisions of Sections 299A, 299C of Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976, and Sections 240A, 240C of Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike 2020 challenged as unconstitutional. (Paras 1, 5).
Facts of the case:
The writ petition challenges the legality of certain legislative amendments and demand notices related to land use and development, asserting violations of constitutional rights.
Findings of Court:
The court quashed the impugned acts, declared certain provisions unenforceable, and mandated compliance with prior established legal standards. The writ petition was allowed based on precedents set by a coordinate bench. (Paras 3, 4).
Issues: Core issues include the constitutionality of legislative amendments affecting property rights and the legal basis for fee collection in development plans. (Paras 1, 2).
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that previous legal determinations were binding, and the linkage of fees to market value was deemed illegal. The court's findings underscored the principles of legality and adherence to statutory processes. (Paras 4, 5, 6).
Result: The impugned demand notice is hereby set-aside, and occupancy certificates to be issued as per law.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to various legislative acts affecting property rights. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. approval of legislative acts covered by prior judgments. (Para 3) |
| 3. court's findings on earlier judgments and legislative provisions. (Para 4 , 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 NO.DPAL 36 SHASANA, dated 16/08/2024 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) NO. DPAL 50 SHASANA, 2021, dated 13/01/2022 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.
PRJ/5362/21-22 dated 12.11.2024 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. 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.
(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 the Karnataka Planning Authority Rules, 1965 , are hereby quashed and set aside.
(viii) It is hereby declared that Cla
