- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:13837 WP No. 4217 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS WRIT PETITION NO. 4217 OF 2025 (BDA) BETWEEN: D. SUNDARA RAMI REDDY AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS R/O. HIG 275, 13TH CROSS NEW BEL ROAD R.M.V. 2ND STAGE BENGALURU NORTH, R.M.V. EXTENSION II STAGE, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA-560094 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. PRATHITH H S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VIKAS SOUDHA, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU 560001. 2. THE COMMISSIONER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY T. CHOWDIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST BENGALURU 560020. 3. TOWN PLANNING MEMBER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY T. CHOWDIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST BENGALURU 560020 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SESHU V., HCGP FOR R1 SRI. K.KRISHNA., ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3) Digitally signed by JUANITA THEJESWINI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:13837 WP No. 4217 of 2025 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT BEARING NO.DLP-13/21- 22/2740/2024-25 DATED 20.01.2025 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3 VIDE ANNEXURE- A AS THE SAME IS ARBITRARY AND BAD IN THE EYES OF LAW AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS ORAL ORDER Learned Counsel Sri.K.Krishna has entered appearance for respondents No.2 and 3. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved of Annexure-A, a communication dated 20.01.2025, whereby the application made by the petitioner on his own behalf and on behalf of his children, seeking approval of a Warehouse Development Plan, has been rejected. 3. The petitioner along with his children are the absolute owners of 10 Acres and 31 Guntas of land in Survey Numbers 132/1, 132/2, 132/3, 133/1, 133/2, 133/3 and 145/2 situated at the Kannur village, Bidarahalli - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:13837 WP No. 4217 of 2025 Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk. The petitioner has approached the respondent-Bangalore Development Authority (for short ‘the BDA’), which is the Planning Authority, seeking approval for Warehouse Development Plan. However, the impugned endorsement at Annexure-A dated 20.01.2025 has been issued by the 3rd respondent- Town Planning Member of the BDA, declining to grant permission, on the ground that the said lands along with various other lands are required for future development. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner seeks to place reliance on the following judgments; (1) T.Vijayalakshmi and Others Vs. Town Planning Member and Another (2006) 8 SCC 502; (2) M/s. Casa Grande Garden City Builders Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Bangalore Development Authority and Another, in W.P.No.4706/2023, and (3) Sri. Patel Muni Gowda Vs. The Commissioner, Bangalore Development Authority and Others, in W.P.No.19174/2022. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:13837 WP No. 4217 of 2025 5. Learned Counsel for the respondent-BDA however contends that the petitioner is not the owner of Survey number 145/2, measuring 2 Acres of land and therefore, he could not have maintained this writ petition by himself. The rightful owners should have been along with the petitioner in seeking relief at the hands of this Court. 6. Recently, this Court had an occasion to consider similar such grievance in the case of Sri. Thimmegowda Vs. The State of Karnataka and Others, in W.P.No.7099 of 2025, which was disposed of on 28.03.2025. That was a case where the Deputy Commissioner had sought for the opinion of the Commissioner, BDA, in the matter of conversion of the land under Section 95 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, since there was some information available with the Deputy Commissioner that the neighboring lands were notified for acquisition for formation of Nadaprabhu Kempegowda Layout or for its extension. This Court, having regard to the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of T.Vijayalakshmi (supra) - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:13837 WP No. 4217 of 2025 held that it is clear that the right to property of a person would include a right to construct a building. Such a right however, can be restricted by reason of a legislation. The Apex Court has held that the provisions of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act and the Comprehensive Development Plan prescribes a particular usage of the land having regard to the planned development and there can be no difference of opinion that the competent authority would be bound to ensure the implementation of the provisions of the Act and the Master Plan. However, the application filed by the petitioner could not have been rejected on the ground that there is a proposal for acquisition. 7. In the case of M/s. Casa Grande (supra), a co-ordinate Bench of this Court has held that a mere approval under Section 15(3) of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, at the hands of the Government enabling the Planning Authority to carry out/development of a scheme or work and execute the - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:13837 WP No. 4217 of 2025 scheme without the process of acquisition and payment of compensation would not enable the authority to decline such an application made by the owners of the property. 8. In the case of Sri. Patel Muni Gowda (supra), the co-ordinate Bench of this Court held that an application for change of land use cannot be kept in abeyance on the erroneous premise that the land would stand covered by a proposed acquisition or further extension of Arkavathy layout. 9. The law laid down by the Apex Court in T.Vijayalakshmi (supra) is that the application for grant of permission for construction of a building or for formation of a layout or for any other permission in terms of the relevant statute will have to be decided in accordance with the law applicable as on the day on which such permission is required to be granted. Therefore, it is clear that such impugned endorsement could not have been issued by the respondents declining to grant permission for a development for Warehouse Development Plan on the - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:13837 WP No. 4217 of 2025 premise that a proposal has been forwarded by the BDA for future development in respect of the lands in question along with the neighboring lands. So long as no notification of acquisition is issued, the respondent authorities/ planning authority cannot decline to consider such application filed by the petitioner. 10. Insofar as the other contention of the learned Counsel for the respondent-BDA that admittedly the petitioner is not the owner of Survey Number 145/2, measuring 2 Acres of land, since he has executed a Gift Deed in favour of his children, is concerned, as rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the respondent authorities had called upon the petitioner to furnish a Joint Affidavit in terms of Annexure-L dated 27.05.2022. All such requirement in terms of law shall be fulfilled by the petitioner. 11. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned endorsement dated 20.01.2025 at Annexure-A, is hereby quashed and set aside. A writ of mandamus is - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:13837 WP No. 4217 of 2025 issued to respondents No.2 and 3 to consider the application filed by the petitioner and pass necessary orders in accordance with law subject to fulfillment of all other requirements, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Sd/- (R DEVDAS) JUDGE DL CT: JL