- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:16827 WP No. 12070 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS WRIT PETITION NO. 12070 OF 2025 (BDA) BETWEEN: V. CHANDRAPPA, S/O. VENKATASWAMY, AGED 67 YEARS, OCCUPATION: ADVOCATE, R/O. NO.3, 4TH FLOOR, SALARPURIA WINDSOR, ULSOOR ROAD, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA-560 042. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. PRATHITH H. S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VIKAS SOUDHA, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. THE COMMISSIONER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY T. CHOWDIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST, BENGALURU - 560 020. 3. TOWN PLANNING MEMBER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Digitally signed by AASEEFA PARVEEN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:16827 WP No. 12070 of 2025 T. CHOWDIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST, BENGALURU - 560 020. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SPOORTHY HEGDE N.,HCGP FOR R1; SRI. K. KRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT BEARING NO. BDA/NOTICE/CLU- 315/3414/2023-24 DATED 21.03.2025 ISSUED BY THE R-3 VIDE ANNXURE-A AS THE SAME IS ARBITRARY AND BAD IN THE EYES OF LAW. 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 for the petitioner submits that in this writ petition, the relief claimed by the petitioner is similar to the one sought in WP No.4217/2025 and this Court has allowed the writ petition on 02.04.2025. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue brought before this Court is whether the planning authority i.e., the Bangalore Development Authority could reject an application for change of land use or for approval of a layout plan etc., on the ground that the lands are - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:16827 WP No. 12070 of 2025 required for future acquisition. This Court, while considering the said writ petition held, having regard to the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of T.Vijayalakshmi and Others vs. Town Planning Member and another reported in (2006) 8 SCC 502 that such applications which are filed in terms of the relevant provisions of the statute will have to be decided in accordance with the law applicable as on the date on which such application is filed. It was therefore held that such impugned endorsement could not have been issued by the respondents declining to grant permission on the premise that a proposal has been forwarded by the BDA for future development in respect of the lands in question along with the neighbouring 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. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned endorsement at Annexure-A dated 21.03.2025, - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:16827 WP No. 12070 of 2025 is hereby quashed and set aside. A writ of mandamus is issued to respondent Nos.2 and 3 to consider the application filed by the petitioner at Annexure-G dated 6.1.2024 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 two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Sd/- (R DEVDAS) JUDGE DS CT:TSM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 35