ORDER : Sachin Shankar Magadum, J. This petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:- “i) Grant an order declaring that the entire Karnataka Municipal Corporations and Certain Other Law (Amendment) Act, 2021 (Karnataka Act No. 01 of 2022) notified on 13/01/2022 (Annexure-H) as being ultra vires the Constitution in so far the Petitioner is concerned. ii) To declare that Karnataka Municipal Corporations and Certain Other Law (Amendment) Act, 2021 (Karnataka Act No. 01 of 2022) notified on 13/01/2022 (ANNEXURE-H) is in violation/contrary to the decision of this Hon'ble Court in W.P No.4601/2020 (LB-BMP) ANNEXURE-F. iii) Grant an order, direction or writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the Office Order No. HaNiNaYo/PR/461/2021-22 dated 09/03/2022 issued by Respondent No.3 as contained in (ANNEXURE-J) in so far the Petitioner is concerned. iv) issue a writ or order by way of certiorari quashing the demand notice dated 04/07/2024 bearing No.BBMP/Addl.Dir/JD NORTH/LP/0164/2017-18, issued by the Respondent No.4 (Annexure-D) for demanding in so far it is concerned to Ground rent, GST on Ground rent, License fee and Scrutiny fee as illegal, without jurisdiction and arbitrary. v) issue a writ or order or direction by way of mandamus directing the Respondent No.3 and 4 BBMP to issue the Occupancy certificate for the residential multi-storied apartment constructed on the Schedule Property without insisting the Ground rent, GST on Ground rent, License fee and Scrutiny fee; and vi) pass any such other order(s) as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest 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. 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 Clause 3.8 of the Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Building Bye- laws, 2003, providing for ‘Ground Rent’, is illegal and are accordingly quashed and set aside. (ix) Consequently, all the impugned Demand Notices raised by the respondent-BBMP, in respect of the writ petitioners herein are also quashed and set aside. It would be advisable that the BBMP may come out with a scheme for ‘One Time Settlement’ and settle the levy and collect the fee generally acceptable to the citizens of Bengaluru. This would also augment the present situation." 3. It would be advisable that the BBMP may come out with a scheme for ‘One Time Settlement’ and settle the levy and collect the fee generally acceptable to the citizens of Bengaluru. This would also augment the present situation." 3. In the present writ petition, the core issue raised stands substantially covered and decided by the authoritative pronouncement of the coordinate bench, wherein the writ petitions were partly allowed and several consequential reliefs were granted. The Hon’ble Court, in unequivocal terms, quashed and set aside the Karnataka Municipal Corporations and Certain Other Law (Amendment) Acts of 2021 and 2023 (Karnataka Act Nos.01 of 2022 and 37 of 2024 respectively). 4. The Court further declared that the provisions under 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 to development proposals concerning plots exceeding 20,000 square meters, and not to smaller plots. Importantly, it was also held that if a fee has been previously collected for change of land use or approval of layout plan, no further fee shall be levied for subsequent development plans, in view of the explanatory 'Note' to Table I of Rule 37-A. 5. The Court declared illegal the linkage of such levies to market or guidance value under Section 45-B of the Karnataka Stamp Act, and consequently, quashed all Circulars and demand notices issued to give effect to such unlawful interpretations. Clause 3.8 of the BBMP Building Bye-laws, 2003, imposing 'Ground Rent', was also struck down. 6. In view of these comprehensive declarations and findings, it is submitted that the controversy raised in the present writ petition no longer survives for adjudication independently, as it is squarely covered by the binding judgment of the coordinate bench. In the light of the law laid down in the reported judgment substantially covering the issue, which is raised in the captioned writ petition, the writ petition is liable to be allowed strictly aligning to the operative portion of the said writ petition. 7. In view of the above, this Court proceeds to pass the following; ORDER (i) The writ petition is allowed. (ii) The impugned demand notice dated 04.07.2024 issued by respondent No.4 as per Annexure-D is hereby set-aside. 7. In view of the above, this Court proceeds to pass the following; ORDER (i) The writ petition is allowed. (ii) The impugned demand notice dated 04.07.2024 issued by respondent No.4 as per Annexure-D 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 hereby directed to forthwith process the petitioner's application seeking occupancy certificate, strictly 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 subjected to the outcome of any appeal that may be filed by the BBMP against the judgment. Pending applications, if any, are also disposed off.