Karnataka High Court
Mr Zamir Mirza vs State Of Karnataka on 27 February, 2025
Author: N S Sanjay Gowda
Bench: N S Sanjay Gowda
-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
Digitally
signed by REPRESENTD BY THEIR
KIRAN
KUMAR R POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER
Location:
HIGH
COURT OF MFAR DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED
KARNATAKA 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)
-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.
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
Chandangoudar
WP No.33709 of 2024, disposed of on 16.01.2025 (BMS Educational Trust vs. State
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.
Sd/-
(N S SANJAY GOWDA)
JUDGE
RK
