- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:16946 WP No. 19983 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA WRIT PETITION NO. 19983 OF 2024 (LB-BMP) BETWEEN: 1. MANJUNATH NAGARAJ @ MANJUNATH.N. S/O LATE K.S.NAGARARAJ, AGED 60 YEARS, R/AT No.43/S, & 43/T, 2ND MAIN, 2ND CROSS, NAGARABHAVI, 2ND STAGE, BENGALURU-560 072. 2. SRINIVASA MURTHY.V., S/O VENKATESH, AGED 39 YEARS, 3. MRS.NAYANA.M.C., W/O SRINIVASA MURTHY.V. AGED 35 YEARS, BOTH ARE R/AT No.227/2B, VIKASA, 5TH ‘B’ MAIN ROAD, ‘B’ SECTOR, YELAHANKA NEW TOWN, BENGALURU-560 064. 4. SRI. SUDARSHAN.N.S., S/O LATE K.V.SEETHARAMAIAH SETTY, AGED AOBUT 50 YEARS, Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:16946 WP No. 19983 of 2024 5. SMT. PALLAVI.B.S., W/O SRI.SUDARSHAN.N.S., AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, PETITIONER No.4 & 5 ARE R/AT No.33/A, RK LAYOUT, NEAR SHANIMAHATHMA TEMPLE, GAVIPURA EXTENSION, BENGALURU-560 0019. 6. SRI. BALAJI.B.S., S/O LATE B.V.SATHYANARAYANA SETTY, AGED 48 YEARS, 7. SMT. RAJESHWARI.B., W/O SRI.BALAJI.B.S., AGED 47 YEARS, PETITIONER No. 6 & 7 ARE R/AT No.1350, BB ROAD, GANDHINAGAR, YELAHANKA, BENGALURU-560 064. 8. KIRAN KUMAR.A., S/O SRI. A.VENU GOPAL, AGED 38 YEARS, 9. SMT.C.S.MANU., W/O SRI. KIRAN KUMAR.A AGED 33 YEARS, PETITIONER NO.8 & 9 ARE R/AT No.691, MIG, A-SECTOR, YELAHANKA NEW TOWN, BENGALURU-560064. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. B.RAMESH., ADVOCATE) - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:16946 WP No. 19983 of 2024 AND: 1. THE COMMISSIONER, BHRUTH BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, N.R.CIRCLE, BENGALURU-560002. 2. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF TOWN PLANNING BHRUTH BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, YELAHANKA DIVISION, BENGALURU-560092. 3. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING, VIDHANA SOUDHA., DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560 001. REP. BY ITS SECRETARY. 4. KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD, KAVERI BHAVAN, K.G.ROAD, BENGALURU-560009. REP. BY ITS SECRETARY. 5. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD, PLANNING AUTHORITY, BENGALURU-560 064. 6. THE COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, SANKEY ROAD, KUMARA PARK, BENGALURU-560020. REP BY ITS SECRETARY. …RESPONDENTS (BYSRI.RAHUL CARIAPPA., AGA FOR R-3; SRI. MONESH KUMAR. K.B., ADVOCATE FOR R-1 & R-2; SRI SHARAN.N. MAJAGE., ADVOCATE FOR R-4 & R-5; SRI.K.KRISHNA., ADVOCATE FOR R-6 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:16946 WP No. 19983 of 2024 QUASH THE LETTER DATED:06.07.2024 BEARING No.SA.NE.NO.YO/YA VA/PR/26/24-25 ISSUED BY THE R-2 WHICH IS PRODUCED AND MARKED AS ANNEXURE-N., ETC. THISPETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 14.02.2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA CAV ORDER 1. On 03.01.1992, petitioner No.1 was allotted an industrial plot bearing No.40E by the Karnataka Housing Board (KHB) having a dimension of about 1012 sq.mtrs. The KHB also executed a registered Lease cum Sale Agreement in favour of the petitioner No.1. 2. During the pendency of this period, the petitioner No.1 sought for issuance of a No-Objection Certificate (NOC) from the KHB for the purpose of utilizing the industrial plot allotted to him for residential purpose. 3. It appears that in respect of similar industrial plot bearing No.38, the KHB had granted a NOC in - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:16946 WP No. 19983 of 2024 favourof one Smt.Durga Bhattacharya and the Manager (Technical) of the KHB addressed a communication to the Commissioner stating that the petition could also be considered for issuance of NOC in the same terms, a copy of which was sent to the petitioner. 4. The matter was placed before the KHB and the KHB accepted the request of the petitioner No.1and permitted the plot to be used for residential purpose, subject to the payment of a sum of Rs.1,03,000/- and the petitioner No.1 was accordingly communicated about the requirement of making the said deposit. 5. The petitioner No.1 accordingly deposited a sum of Rs.1,03,000/- and this resulted in the KHB issuing a NOC in which it was stated as follows – "ಕಾಟಕ ಗೃಹಮಂಡ ಯ ಯಲಹಂಕ ಉಪನಗರ ೈಾಾ ಬಾವೆಯ ೇಶನ ಸಂ$ೆ%.40ಇ ಯನು( ೈಾಾ ಉ)ೆ*ೕಶ+ಂದ ವಸ- ಉಪ.ೕಗಾ/0 ಪವ-ಸಲು 1ಾ2ೇ3ಾ - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:16946 WP No. 19983 of 2024 ಪತ5ವನು( ೋರು-7ೕ. ಉ8ೇಖ (3)ರನ ಮಂಡ ಸ:ೆಯ ನಡವ ಗಳನ<ಯ ಈ ೆಳಕಂಡ ಷರ-7ೊಳಪಟು? ರ2ೇ3ಾ ಪತ5ವನು( ೕಡ8ಾ0)ೆ. 1) ೇಶನವನು( ವಸ- ಉ)ೆ*ೕಶೆ/ ಉಪ.ೕ0ಸಲು @ೆಂಗಳAರು ಅCವೃ+D 2ಾ5Eಾರ+ಂದ ಭೂ ಉಪ.ೕಗ ಬದ8ಾವೆ ಆ)ೇಶವನು( ಪೆಯುವHದು ಮತು7 2) ೇಶನದ ಅCವೃ+D Iಾಣ ಾಯ ೈೊಳKLವ ಮುನ( ಸೂಕ72ಾ5Eಾರ+ಂದ ಅನುMೕ+ತ ನNೆಯನು( ಮಂಡ ೆ ಸಸುವHದು. " 6. As could be seen from Annexure-F, the entity which had formed the industrial sites had granted its NOC to the allottee and permitted the said land to be used for residential purpose and this was subject to conditions, firstly, that the petitioner No.1 should obtain the change of land use from the Bengaluru Development Authority (BDA) and consequently, he would have to obtain the approval of the building plan before he undertook construction. 7. In the year 2007, the third Comprehensive Development Plan / Revised Master Plan (RMP) for the year 2015 was approved by the Government. In - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:16946 WP No. 19983 of 2024 this RMP of 2015, it is not in dispute that the area in which the industrial site so formed was earmarked for residential use. 8. In other words, as against the original reservation for industrial use in the CDP, the plot allotted to the petitioner came within the residential zone in the revised RMP of 2015. 9. On 23.09.2016, the KHB also proceeded to execute a sale deed in respect of the industrial site which had been allotted in the year 1992. Thus, the title in respect of the properties stood conveyed in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner No.1, thereafter, proceeded to bifurcate the property into six plots and sold the same to petitioners No.2 to 8 under different sale deeds dated 21.09.2023, 16.10.2023 and 22.12.2023. 10. The Bruhat Bengaluru MahanagaraPalike (BBMP) acknowledged the sale and proceeded to register - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:16946 WP No. 19983 of 2024 their names in the property tax register and made the kathedars liable to pay the property tax. 11. On 05.06.2024, the 2nd and 3rd petitioner made an application for grant of approval for a building plan. However, this application was proposed for rejection on the ground that the proposed plot was a part of Yelahanka Township and it had been allotted for industrial purpose and the bifurcation of the plot ought to have been according to the Zonal Regulations. 12. It was also proposed that since the land use reserved in the approved layout plan should not be used or changed as per the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the request of 2nd and 3rd petitioner was liable for rejection. 13. The BBMP conducted a spot inspection and by an order dated 06.07.2024 proceeded to go by its earlier proposal and rejected the application filed by - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:16946 WP No. 19983 of 2024 the 2nd petitioner. In this order of rejection, the BBMP reiterated that the KHB had allotted the site as an industrial site and this industrial site had been divided into six plots and without a plot bifurcation being permitted by the BDA. It was also stated that a change of land use is also required, since the site in question was an industrial site. 14. Being aggrieved by the said endorsement, the petitioners have filed this Writ Petition. 15. The BDA has entered appearance and filed its statement of objections. In the statement of objections, it has contended that the plot in question comes under the residential zone in the RMP and, therefore, a change of land use was necessary. 16. The BDA contends that the industrial site formed by the KHB would by virtue of Regulation 3.16 of the Zoning of Land Use and Regulations be treated as conforming uses irrespective of the classification and - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:16946 WP No. 19983 of 2024 hence the land use would continue to be only for an industrial use. It is also contended that bifurcation of plot into six residential sites was without the approval of the BDA and, therefore, the request of the petitioner for sanctioning a plan was rightly rejected. 17. It may be pertinent to state here that during the course of the arguments, however, it was admitted by the BDA that as per the RMP of 2015, the plot involved in this Writ Petition was coming under the residential zone and not under the industrial zone, as had been earmarked earlier when the layout had been formed by the KHB. 18. The KHB has also filed its statement of objections basically adopting the stand of the BDA, while not disputing the fact that it had granted NOC for use of the industrial site it had allotted for residential purpose. - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:16946 WP No. 19983 of 2024 19. Learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri.B.Ramesh contended that nodoubt the plot allotted by the KHB was an industrial site and at the time of allotment the area was classified as industrial use in the then existing CDP. He submitted that, subsequently under RMP, 2015, the Planning Authority had designated this particular area of the petitioner No.1 as residential and, therefore, from the date the RMP, 2015 became effective, the petitioner No.1 could utilize the land for residential use. He submitted that the requirement for change of land use would arise only if a particular area, as on the date of its use is earmarked for a different purpose and is required to be used for another purpose by the landlord. 20. He contended that until RMP, 2015 became effective, the petitioner was lawfully bound to use the plot only for industrial purposes, but the moment the designation itself was changed in the RMP, he - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:16946 WP No. 19983 of 2024 became entitled to use the plot for the newly designated purpose i.e., for residential purpose. 21. He, therefore, submitted that actually the very condition imposed by the KHB and the contention of the BDA and the change of land use is required,is incorrect. 22. Learned counsel also contended that since the KHB had permitted the bifurcation of the plot, the BBMP could not refuse to accord sanction to the building plan to put up a residential dwelling unit. He submitted that the layout had been formed by the KHB and if that statutory Authority had permitted the site that it had allotted to be used for the purpose other than which it was allotted, both the BBMP as well as the BDA would be bound by such permission. The BDA, merely because it was a Planning Authority, could not object to the NOC granted by another statutory Authority for the use of the plot by an allottee in the manner approved by the Authority. - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:16946 WP No. 19983 of 2024 23. He submitted that even under the Zonal Regulations, it was permissible for a plot to be bifurcated, if the plot had been formed by the BDA or any other Authority and, therefore, the requirement that there should have been an approval for plot bifurcation approval only by the BDA would be incorrect. 24. The learned counsel for the petitioners also contended that the entire area had been converted into a residential area and in the abutting properties residential constructions had come up and, therefore, for the Planning Authority to contend that the site should be used as an industrial site when the entire neighbourhood was residential, was thoroughly misconceived. 25. Sri. K. Krishna, learned counsel for respondent No.6, on the other hand, appearing for the Planning Authority contended that the character of the plot would remain as per the terms of the allotment and since the formation of the site was as an industrial - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC:16946 WP No. 19983 of 2024 site, the same can be used only as an industrial site. He submitted that if there was any intent to change this land use, necessarily the Planning Authority had to accord approval for the change in land use. 26. He submitted that in the instant case, admittedly no such change of land use was permitted, and therefore the petitioner could not use the plot for residential use. He also submitted that the bifurcation of the plot can only be in accordance with the Zonal Regulations and if a plot had beensub- divided without the approval of the Planning Authority, the same would be non estand consequently the request of the petitioner for sub- division of the plot and constructing residential use cannot be accepted. 27. In the light of the arguments advanced, the principal questions that would arise for consideration in this Writ Petition are - - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC:16946 WP No. 19983 of 2024 i. Whether the petitioner was required to seek change of land use in respect of the site which was originally allotted to him as an industrial site, after the RMP, 2015 came into force, in which the area has been designated for residential use? ii. Whether the BDA and BBMP are justified in contending that the bifurcation of the plot can be done only in accordance with the Zonal Regulations for sub-dividing the property? 28. The answer to the above would have to be in favour of the petitioner for the following reasons: 29. From the facts narrated above, admittedly, the KHB formed an industrial layout and allotted various industrial sites including site No.40/E to the petitioner. Admittedly, the KHB granted its NOC to the allottee, the petitioner No.1 to use the industrial plot that it had allotted for residential purpose and it had also collected charges in this regard. - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC:16946 WP No. 19983 of 2024 30. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner has bifurcated the industrial plot into six residential plots, and the BBMP has registered the katha in respect of the purchasers of these six residential sites. Thus, it is clear from the above that though the site was originally an industrial site, the same has been permitted to be used for residential purpose by the Authority, which allotted to it, which was, however, subject to the condition that the petitioner is required to obtain the change of land use from the BDA. 31. As already stated above, it is not in dispute that the designation of the area in which site No.40E is situated, has been admittedly changed and pursuant to the RMP of 2015, the area has been designated for residential use. 32. The Zoning of Land Use and Regulations are a part of the RMP and regulate the manner in which development can be carried out in the planning area - 17 - NC: 2025:KHC:16946 WP No. 19983 of 2024 i.e., in the City of Bengaluru. Regulation 1.1 declares as follows - "The regulations proposed are prospective. The developments that are lawfully established prior to the coming into force of zonal regulations shall be allowed to continue as non-confirming uses." 33. This would, therefore, indicate that if an industry had been started prior to the Regulations, they would continue to be lawfully established even if the area had subsequently been designated for residential use. The only effect of this Regulation is that the earlier use would continue to be lawful even though the earlier use has been changed. However, the use of the area after the Regulations have come into force would have to be as per the Zonal Regulations. Thus, from the date on which the RMP, 2015 became effective, the use of land would be as per the zoning provided under the RMP, 2015. - 18 - NC: 2025:KHC:16946 WP No. 19983 of 2024 34. In simple terms, if an area has been earmarked for industrial use under one Master Plan but the same has been changed to say, commercial use, the land can continue to be used for an industrial purpose notwithstanding the change in reservation. 35. Admittedly, in the instant case, the lands have been designated for residential use under the RMP, 2015 and consequently though the earlier designation was for industrial use, by virtue of the change in the RMP, 2015, the owners of the land would be entitled to use the property for residential use from the date the RMP 2015 came into effect. 36. At the same time, the persons, who had been allotted an industrial site could continue to run the industry and this would not be unlawful. Since the reservation of the land had been changed, they would also be entitled start using the land for residential purposes, and this usage would also be valid. In such a case, there was no question of - 19 - NC: 2025:KHC:16946 WP No. 19983 of 2024 seeking for any change of land use from the Planning Authority. The usage of the land for the purpose for which it is reserved would not require any permission merely because it had been reserved for a different purpose earlier. 37. It must be kept in mind that only when the use of land is for a purpose other than the one depicted in the RMP, 2015, the question of seeking permission of the planning authority for change of land use would arise. 38. It is pertinent to state here that the designation or reservation made under the RMP would not necessarily be of a permanent nature. Given the changing requirements, the Planning Authority could change the land use and permit the very same land to be used for a completely different purpose. In law, there is no bar imposed on the Planning Authority to change the land use whenever it revises the Master Plan. - 20 - NC: 2025:KHC:16946 WP No. 19983 of 2024 39. If an area is reserved as 'residential' in one plan, it can be designated as 'commercial' in a Revised Plan. This would only mean that the owner of the land who has already used for a residential purpose can continue to use it for residential purpose and the said use would not be unlawful. 40. However, this would also mean that if the personintends to use it for a commercial purpose, i.e., for the changed purpose, he can do and would not require any permission for the change of land use. This is because he is not changing the land use prescribed under the Master Plan and seeks to use it for the designated purpose.Consequently there would be no need for him to seek for change of land use as provided under Section 14-A of the Karnataka Town And Country Planning Act, 1961. 41. In this case, as already stated above, since the designation of the land in question has been admittedly changed from ‘industrial’ to 'residential', - 21 - NC: 2025:KHC:16946 WP No. 19983 of 2024 the allottee of the industrial site i.e., the petitioner No.1 would be legally entitled to use it for residential purpose and thus, the direction of the BBMP and BDA that he would require a change of land use cannot be accepted and the same is rejected. 42. As far as bifurcation of plot is concerned, the KHB i.e., the Authority which allotted the industrial site has indicated its no objection for use of this industrial site as a residential property and it had also collected a sum of Rs.1,03,000/-. 43. Chapter-6 of the Zonal Regulations deals with the Subdivision Regulations and Regulation 6.2 specifies the 'general conditions applicable for sub-division, amalgamation and bifurcation of plot'. Regulation 6.2 sub-clause (iii) provides for 'bifurcation'. The second para of Regulation 6.2(iii) specifically states that 'a plot / site which is a part of the sub division plan/layout/scheme duly approved by the authority maybe further bifurcated with prior permission of - 22 - NC: 2025:KHC:16946 WP No. 19983 of 2024 Authority and the sub-divided plot shall not be less than the prescribed size'. 44. As could be seen from the above a plot or a site which is a part of a layout duly approved by the Authority can be further bifurcated with the prior permission of the Authority and the only condition is that the sub-divided plot shall not be less than the prescribed size. Therefore, so long as the sub- divided plot is more than the prescribed size, it is permissible for the plot to be divided. Since the bifurcation of the plot is permitted, the non-obtaining of permission under Regulation 6.2(iii) from the Authority cannot be considered fatal, so long as it is ensured that sub-divided plot is not in the prescribed size. 45. In the present case, the BBMP has accepted the bifurcation. It must be borne in mind that there are six sale deeds dividing the industrial site into six residential sites and this division has been - 23 - NC: 2025:KHC:16946 WP No. 19983 of 2024 acknowledged by the BBMP by registering the kathas on the basis of these sale deeds. 46. It is also to be noticed here that the prescribed size in the third paragraph of 6.2(iii) indicates that the bifurcated plot shall not be less than 50 sq.mtrs. and should have a minimum of 3 mtrs. access. 47. Admittedly, in the present case, the bifurcated six plots are more than 50 sq.mtrs. and all the six plots have access through 30ft. and 40ft. roads. The fourth requirement of bifurcation that the bifurcated plot should have a minimum of 6.0 mtrs. frontage is also satisfied, since all the sites have a frontage ranging from 30ft. to 43ft.3inches i.e., more than 6 mtrs. 48. In the light of the fact that the Regulations pertaining to 'bifurcation' under 6.2(iii) are also satisfied, the bifurcation made by the petitioner,is in accordance with the Zonal Regulations, the BDA should also have - 24 - NC: 2025:KHC:16946 WP No. 19983 of 2024 no objection to this bifurcation. The BDA is, therefore, directed to grant its post facto approval to the bifurcation. 49. As a further consequence, the BBMP is directed to consider the plan of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders without raising the objection that the petitioner is required to obtain a change of land use and also obtain prior approval for the bifurcation. 50. Another factor which will have to be kept in mind, in the present case, is that from the photographs produced as per Annexures-M1 and M2, the neighbouring properties comprise of apartment complexes. This aspect of the matter is not disputed either by the KHB or by the BDA. If the buildings in the vicinity of the petitioner's property are being exclusively used as residential dwelling units, it would be illogical for the authorities to demand that the site be used only for an industrial purpose, as - 25 - NC: 2025:KHC:16946 WP No. 19983 of 2024 originally envisaged when the industrial site was formed. 51. It has to be kept in mind that if there are already residential units in the neighbourhood, the insistence of the authorities to use it for industrial purpose would cause irreparable damage to all the residents. 52. It may also be pertinent to notice here that the BDA, in its counter, has stated that there was indeed in a provision earlier under Section 14-A of the KTCP Act which permitted a change of land use for industrial purpose and residential purpose for which Act No.38/2015 . 53. In the statement of objections, the BDA had, in fact, admits that there was an earlier provision which permitted the change of land use from industrial to residential, but the same was omitted by way of an amendment. It would be useful to refer to the - 26 - NC: 2025:KHC:16946 WP No. 19983 of 2024 provision which had been inserted in the year 2005 which reads as follows- 54. Section 10 of the Amendment Act No.1/2005 - "10. Amendment of section 14-A.- In section 14-A of the principal Act, after sub- section (2), the following sub-section shall be inserted, namely:- "(3) Notwithstanding anything contrary contained in the Act, if the change in land use or development is from commercial or industrial to residential or from industrial to commercial and the stipulated fee is paid and the Local Planning Authority is informed prior to effecting the change, the permission for such change of land use or development shall be deemed to have been given." 55. As could be seen from the above, the moment the stipulated fee was paid and the local Authority was informed for using a land which was reserved for commercial use to residential use, the permission was deemed to have been given. This itself would indicate that the legislature in the year 2005 did - 27 - NC: 2025:KHC:16946 WP No. 19983 of 2024 encourage the change of land use from industrial or commercial to residential and it in fact granted a deemed change of land use status. 56. In the instant case, it will have to be kept in mind that the petitioner sought for grant of NOC of the KHB in the year 2006 when the amendment was in force, and this request for grant of NOC was also granted.During the relevant point of time, since the KHB had granted its NOC, there would have been a deemed change of land use if the petitioner had merely informed the BDA and had paid the requisite fee and it is, therefore, clear that there would be no harm or prejudice caused to the residents of the area by permitting an industrial site to be used for a residential use. 57. In the light of the above, the Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned order is quashed and also as directed above, the BBMP shall consider the request of the petitioners for grant of a building plan without - 28 - NC: 2025:KHC:16946 WP No. 19983 of 2024 insisting upon either obtaining a change of land use or a prior approval for bifurcation or approval for bifurcation of the plot. 58. In view of the disposal of the petition, all pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of. Sd/- (N S SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE HNM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 153