IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 6466 OF 2015 (LB-BMP)

BETWEEN:

SRI. M.R. KODANDARAM AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, S/O LATE M.S. RAMAIAH, RESIDING AT NO.115, GOKULA EXTENSION, HMT ROAD, (NEAR BEL CIRCLE)

BANGALORE-560 054.

…PETITIONER (BY SRI. PRADEEP S. SAWKAR, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT, VIKASA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560 001.

Digitally REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY signed by HEMALATHA J

2. THE COMMISSIONER Location:

BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE, HIGH COURT OF NEAR HUDSON CIRCLE, KARNATAKA BANGALORE-560 002.

3. ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER YESHWANTHPUR SUB ZONE, YESHWANTHPUR, BANGALORE-560 022.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B. BOPANNA, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1;

SRI. S.H.PRASHANTH, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.2 AND 3)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE CIRCULAR BEARING NO.UA(COM)PR:208:2012-13 DATED 07.03.2013 [ANNEXURE-A] ISSUED BY THE 2^ND RESPONDENT AND ETC.

THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDER ON 09.02.2026 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

CAV ORDER

The petitioner has sought for a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the Circular bearing No.GD (PÀA) ¦.Dgï:208:2012-13 dated 07.03.2013 issued by the respondent No.2 and to quash the notice bearing No.ARO YPR-GLPR- 287/14-15 dated 08.08.2014 issued by the respondent No.3 and to hold that Rule 3(v) of the Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike Property Tax Rules, 2009 (henceforth referred to as 'Rules, 2009') is ultra vires the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 (henceforth referred to as 'KMC Act, 1976') and unconstitutional and accordingly quash the said Rule and to hold that Entry 14A of Form V of the Rules, 2009 is ultra vires the KMC Act, 1976 and unconstitutional and accordingly to quash the said entry.

2. (i) The petitioner claims that he is the owner of a property bearing No.115, PID No.02-226-115, Gokula Extension, HMT Road, Bengaluru - 560 054, which housed a hotel and spa in the name and style "Movenpick Hotel and Spa", which received a Five-star certification by the Government of Karnataka during January 2013. He contends that the respondent No.2 issued a Circular dated 07.03.2013 purportedly under Section 108-A(16) of the KMC Act, 1976, determining the rates for various properties under various categories for fixation of the unit area value for arriving at the taxable annual value of properties falling within such categories. Petitioner claims that from a reading of the properties described and their unit area value subscribed under Categories IX and X, the Circular does not make any distinction and also take into account the zone or location of the properties in question. Petitioner contends that Category IX deals with restaurants and hotels other than those mentioned in Category X and fixes the unit area value based on the daily room rents charged irrespective of the zone in which the hotel or restaurant is located. Similarly, Category X determines unit area value at the rate of Rs.20/- per sq. ft. on hotels which have been notified as "Star Hotels" by the Central Government or the State Government. Petitioner claims that there is no justifiable distinction made in Category X for various classes of Star Hotels such as One-star, Two-star, Three-star, Four-star or Five-star hotels and a uniform unit area value has been determined and that too without taking into consideration the zone in which such hotel may be located.

(ii) Petitioner contends that based on such a Circular, the respondent No.3 issued a notice to the petitioner calling upon him to pay the revised rate of property tax at Rs.20/- per sq. ft. in comparison to Rs.14/- and Rs.7/- per sq. ft. that was levied earlier as per the Order dated 03.05.2012. The petitioner was then called upon