- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20839 WP No. 16006 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO.16006 OF 2025 (LB-BMP) BETWEEN: SMT.SUDHA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS W/O K.MOHAN KUMAR R/AT NO.T-1, GAYATHRI MEADOWS 5TH CROSS, CENTRAL EXCISE LAYOUT BHOOPASANDRA SANJAYNAGAR BENGALURU - 560 094 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. T.P VIVEKANANDA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE BRUHATH BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE N.R SQUARE, BANGALORE 560 002 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF COMMISSIONER 2. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR TOWN PLANNING YELAHANKA ZONE BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE BANGALORE 560 002 3. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY T.CHOWDAIAH ROAD KUMARAPARK WEST Digitally signed by NAGARAJA B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20839 WP No. 16006 of 2025 BANGALORE 560 020 BY ITS COMMISSIONER 4. THE TOWN PLANNING MEMBER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY T CHOWDAIAH ROAD KUMARAPARK WEST BANGALORE 560 020 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.PAVAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R.1 AND R.2; SRI.VASANTH, ADVOCATE FOR R.3 AND R.4) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECTING THE R-1 AND 2 TO SANCTION THE BUILDING PLAN AND LICENSE IN RESPECT OF THE SCHEDULE SITE FORTHWITH AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL ORDER The petitioner is before this Court being aggrieved by the rejection of his request for sanction of the building plan and issuance of license, as reflected in the online note sheet report downloaded from the official portal of respondent No.1 – Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP), a copy of which is produced at Annexure-G. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20839 WP No. 16006 of 2025 A perusal of the said note sheet indicates that the petitioner’s request has been turned down on the premise that the site in question is allegedly involved in a Court case. According to the petitioner, this endorsement is vague and without any reference to any specific judicial proceedings which would bar consideration of the application on merits. The petitioner contends that he is the absolute owner of the schedule property, having acquired it through a valid allotment made by the Bengaluru Development Authority (BDA), and that there is no subsisting restraint order passed by any Court that would prevent the BBMP from considering his application. Aggrieved by such arbitrary and non-speaking rejection recorded in the online note sheet, and being left with no efficacious remedy, the petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus directing respondent Nos.1 and 2 to consider his application afresh and to sanction the building plan and - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20839 WP No. 16006 of 2025 issue the requisite license in respect of the schedule property, forthwith and in accordance with law. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned counsel appearing for BBMP and learned counsel appearing for BDA. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents Authorities would fairly concede that this issue is resolved by the Co-ordinate Bench in an identical case, which is evidenced at Annexure-K. 4. On a careful examination of the order passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, a copy of which is produced at Annexure-K, it emerges that the factual circumstances in that case bear a striking resemblance to those in the present writ petition. In the said matter, the competent authority had issued an endorsement declining to grant the necessary sanction on the ground that an interim order purportedly restrained such consideration. However, the Co-ordinate Bench, upon a detailed perusal - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20839 WP No. 16006 of 2025 of the record, found that the endorsement issued by the authority did not flow from or have any basis in the interim orders passed by this Court. Taking note of the fact that the petitioner therein had acquired the site in question through a valid allotment made by the Bengaluru Development Authority (BDA), the Court found no legal impediment for the authority to process the application. Consequently, the Court quashed the impugned endorsement and issued a direction to the concerned authority to reconsider the petitioner’s request for sanction of the building plan and take appropriate action in accordance with law. 5. In the present case too, the petitioner is similarly situated. The petitioner is the absolute owner of a site formed by the Bengaluru Development Authority, situated adjacent to the property which was the subject matter in the earlier writ petition. The relief sought and the factual backdrop in both cases are substantially identical. The petitioner has submitted an application seeking license and - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20839 WP No. 16006 of 2025 sanction of the building plan in respect of the site allotted by the BDA. There is no material on record to indicate that any interim order of this Court precludes the respondent- authorities from considering the petitioner’s application on merits. In light of the fact that the site in question has been duly acquired from a statutory planning authority and there being no statutory bar to consider the application, this Court is of the considered opinion that the respondents are under a legal obligation to evaluate the petitioner’s application in accordance with the applicable law and pass necessary orders without being influenced by extraneous considerations. 6. In view of the above, this Court proceeds to pass the following; ORDER (i) The writ petition is hereby allowed. (ii) Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are directed to reconsider the petitioner’s application dated - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20839 WP No. 16006 of 2025 05.12.2024 produced at Annexure-G, seeking license and sanction of the building plan, strictly in accordance with law. (iii) If the petitioner has furnished all requisite documents and complied with all necessary formalities as per the relevant statutory provisions and regulations, the concerned authorities shall proceed to consider the application on merits and pass appropriate orders thereon. (iv) The entire exercise shall be completed expeditiously and in any event, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE NBM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22