SOBHA LIMITED Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These petitions call in question the validity of imposition of impost/fee/charge by the Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board ('the Board' for short) for the purpose of issuance of a 'No Objection Certificate' to a proposed residential building in terms of Bye-law 3/2/10 of the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Building Bye-laws. The demand is made by the Board.

(2.) Shorn of unnecessary details, facts in brief, are as follows:- Petitioner in Writ Petition No.20016 of 2021 is a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and is engaged in the business of real estate development. The Company claims to be well known for the construction of apartment complexes. It is also claimed that it has sphere headed the revolution of real estate in India. The petitioner purchases schedule property comprising of different survey numbers through a Joint Development Agreement for the development of the schedule property. All the documents of the properties after transfer are in the name of the petitioner. The issue in the lis does not concern the title of the property. Under Sec. 295 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 (for short 'the KMC' Act) certain building bye-laws are notified by the Corporation. Sec. 423 of the KMC Act empowers the Corporation to make bye-laws which it has notified in the year 2003 viz., Bangalore Mahanagara Palike Building Bye-laws, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Bye-laws' for short). The Bye-laws regulate buildings and other matters concerning those buildings as obtaining under those bye-laws.

(3.) The petitioner in order to develop the schedule property by construction of residential apartment buildings submits an application for building licence in terms of bye-law No.3.0 of the Bye-laws for construction of building. For the purpose of issuance of building licence with regard to high-rise building, a no objection from respondents 3 and 4 i.e., the Board and other agencies like BESCOM, Fire Services Department etc. as mentioned in Bye-law 3/2/10 is a condition precedent.