- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19752 WP No. 15952 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 15952 OF 2025 (BDA) BETWEEN: SRI C.CHETHAN KUMAR S/O CHANNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/AT JUTTANAHALLI VILLAGE, KUNDANA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT – 562 110. …PETITIONER (BY SRI PRASANNA B.R., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, VIKASA SOUDHA, 4TH FLOOR, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU – 560 001. 2. THE COMMISSIONER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST, BENGALURU – 560 020. Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19752 WP No. 15952 of 2025 3. THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR TOWN PLANNING BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST, BENGALURU – 560 020. …RESPONDENTS” (BY SRI SPOORTHY HEGDE N., HCGP FOR R-1; SRI VASANTHA, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R-3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT DATED 02.05.2025 IN NO. ¨ÉAC¥Áæ/£ÀAiÉÆøÀ/CLU-432/24-25/411/2025-26 ISSUED BY THE R3 VIDE ANNEXURE -E. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER The petitioner is before this Court seeking the following prayer: “i) ISSUE a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned endorsement dated 02.05.2025 in No.¨ÉAC¥Áæ/£ÀAiÉÆøÀ/CLU-432/24- 25/411/2025-26 issued by the 3rd respondent vide ANNEXURE – E. ii) ISSUE any writ order or direction which deemed fit in the circumstances of the case.” - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19752 WP No. 15952 of 2025 2. Heard Sri Prasanna B.R., learned counsel for petitioner, Sri Spoorthy Hegde N., learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 and Sri Vasantha, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that in an identical circumstance, a coordinate bench of this Court has considered the issue in W.P.No.19174/2022, disposed on 15.11.2022. 4. Learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 and learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 would not dispute the position of law as is considered by the coordinate bench and the identical circumstance in the case at hand. 5. The order passed in W.P.No.19174/2022, by the coordinate bench, reads as follows: “8. As rightly contended by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, a plain reading of Section 14 and 14A of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961 will clearly indicate that mere proposed prospective acquisition simpliciter sometime in the future by the State Government or BDA in relation to the subject land cannot be construed or treated as a reason for non-consideration of application under Section 14 or 14A of the Karnataka - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19752 WP No. 15952 of 2025 Town and Country Planning Act, 1961. It is also relevant to state that no preliminary notification has been issued by the respondent No.2 – BDA so far and no scheme for approval has been submitted by the BDA to the State Government even till today. 9. Under these circumstances, merely because the State Government and the BDA are in the process of considering and taking necessary steps to initiate acquisition proceedings in relation to the subject land, the said circumstance cannot be made the basis or a ground for the BDA to keep the application for change of land use in abeyance on the sole premise that discussions and communications are happening between the State Government and the BDA as regards acquisition of the subject lands. Under these circumstances, I am of the view that the impugned endorsement issued by the BDA refusing to consider the application for change of land use submitted by the petitioner is clearly illegal and arbitrary and contrary to law as well as the provisions of Sections 14 and 14A of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961 and the same deserves to be quashed and necessary directions to be issued to respondent No.2 – BDA to consider and take appropriate decision on the application within a stipulated time frame.” In that light, I deem it appropriate to set aside the impugned endorsement and direct respondent Nos.2 and 3 to consider the application of the petitioner, in terms of the observations made in the afore-quoted order. 6. For the aforesaid reasons, the following: ORDER i) The writ petition is allowed. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19752 WP No. 15952 of 2025 ii) Impugned endorsement dated 02.05.2025, bearing No. ¨ÉAC¥Áæ/£ÀAiÉÆøÀ/CLU-432/24-25/411/2025- 26, issued by respondent No.3, is hereby set aside. iii) Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are directed to reconsider the application of the petitioner and take appropriate decision / pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, bearing in mind the observations made in this order, within an outer limit of three months from today, if not earlier. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE NVJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14