Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 10642 (KAR)

SRI RAMESH v. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY

WP/201127/2025 · 2025-06-11

M I Arun

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3002 WP No. 201127 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT PETITION NO.201127 OF 2025 (LB-RES) BETWEEN: SRI. RAMESH S/O MANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE AND BUSINESS, RESIDING AT WARD NO.1, HULIHYDER ROAD, KOPPAL-583283. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. GANESH SUBHASHCHANDRA KALBURGI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING AUTHORITY, VIKAS SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560001. 2. THE DIRECTOR, TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING AUTHORITY, M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE-560001. 3. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, TOWN AND RURAL PLANNING AUTHORITY, YADGIR-585201. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SHESHADRI JAISHANKAR, AGA) Digitally signed by SHIVALEELA DATTATRAYA UDAGI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3002 WP No. 201127 of 2025 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE APPROPRIATE WRIT MORE SO IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI AND MANDAMUS AND GRANT FOLLOWING RELIEFS I) ISSUE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI, QUASHING THE ENDORSEMENT/COMMUNICATION DATED 13.12.2024 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT (ANNEXURE-G), REJECTING THE APPROVAL OF THE SANCTION PLAN FOR THE PROPOSED COMMERCIAL HOTEL PROJECT OF THE PETITIONER IN RESPECT OF LAND BEARING SY NO.230, PLOT NO.1 HISSA NO.5 OF KAKKERA VILLAGE, KAKKERA HOBLI, SURAPURA TALUKA, YADGIR DISTRICT. II) ISSUE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS, DIRECTING THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO FORTHWITH CONSIDER AND GRANT APPROVAL OF THE BUILDING/ SANCTION PLAN SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF A COMMERCIAL HOTEL IN THE CONVERTED LAND, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CONVERSION ORDER DATED 31.07.2021 (ANNEXURE-B), WITHOUT INSISTING ON ANY ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS WHICH ARE NOT PART OF THE SAID CONVERSION ORDER OR STATUTORY RULES. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3002 WP No. 201127 of 2025 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN) The petitioner intends to establish hotel on his property. It is submitted that necessary conversion order has been obtained in respect of the land concerned. The petitioner made an application for approval of the plan. Respondent No.3 has issued impugned endorsement wherein it is stated that the petitioner is required to provide for parking area and 12mtr access road to the property in the plan submitted by him then only permission can be granted. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed. 2. The case of the petitioner is that, once his land has been converted for commercial purpose for the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3002 WP No. 201127 of 2025 establishment of the hotel, the plan submitted by him has to be approved. 3. Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate upon instructions submits that the land may be converted for commercial purpose but, still the petitioner is required to put up hotel on the land so converted in accordance with law providing for necessary set backs, parking area, garden area and an access road. It is further submitted that the impugned order does not reject the right of the petitioner to establish a hotel on his plot, but, it only stipulates that he is required to submit a plan in accordance with law. 4. Mere conversion of the land for commercial purpose will not give right to the petitioner to establish a hotel as he likes. He has to necessarily submit a plan for approval, which is in accordance with law by providing the necessary amenities. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3002 WP No. 201127 of 2025 5. For the said reasons, I do not see any error in the impugned endorsement issued by respondent No.3. Hence, the following: ORDER Writ petition is disposed of reserving liberty to the petitioner to approach respondent No.3 by submitting a plan in accordance with law. It is needless to state that, if such plan is submitted by the petitioner, it would be considered by the respondents in accordance with law and appropriate orders will be passed. Sd/- (M.I.ARUN) JUDGE SDU LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 20 CT:SI