- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:17186 WP No. 32671 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA WRIT PETITION NO. 32671 OF 2024 (LB-RES) BETWEEN: 1 . SRI K RAVINDRA NAYAK, S/O LATE K. PANDURANGA NAYAK, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, R/AT. 'ROHINI', NEAR SERVICE BUS STAND, UDUPI TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT- 576 001. (SENIOR CITIZEN BENEFITS NOT CLAIMED) …PETITIONER (BY SRI. D.L.N.RAO, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. S.RAGHAVENDRA., ADVOCATE) AND: 1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT, M.S. BUILDING, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560 001. REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY. 2 . THE DIRECTOR OF MUNCIPAL ADMINISTRATION 9TH AND 10TH FLOORS, VISHVESHWARAIAH TOWER, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:17186 WP No. 32671 of 2024 BENGALURU- 560 001. 3 . UDUPI URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY UDUPI MALPE MAIN ROAD, ADI-UDUPI, UDUPI DISTRICT- 576 103. REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER. 4 . UDUPI TOWN MUNCIPAL COUNCIL KAVIMUDDANNA. MARG, UDUPI, UDUPI DISTRICT- 576 101. REPRESENTED BY ITS ADMINISTRATION OFFICER 5 . THE TAHSILDAR CIRCUIT HOUSE ROAD, BANNANJE, UDUPI TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT- 576 101. 6 . THE REGIONAL COMMISSIONER, MYSORE DIVISION, MYSORE-5700004. 7 . M/S. MANDAVI REAL ESTATE DEVELOPERS (R), REGISTERED UNDER THE KARNATAKA SOCIETES ACT 1960, HAVING THEIR OFFICE AT 3RD FLOOR, MANDAVI TRADE CENTRE, KADIYALI, GOPALAPURA, SANTEKATTE, UDUPI- 576 101. REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY SRI. JERRY VINCENT DIAS …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. V.SHIVA REDDY., AGA FOR R-1, R-2, R-5 & R-6; - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:17186 WP No. 32671 of 2024 SRI. K.PRASAD HEGDE., ADVOCATE FOR R-3; SRI. T.J. ABDULLA., ADVOCATE FOR R-4; SRI. R.S. RAVI., SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. S.K.ACHARYA., ADVOCATE FOR C/R-7) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED: 08.11.2024 PASSED BY RESPONDENT No.6 IN APPEAL No.MUN-RP-08/2024 VIDE ANNEXURE-A, ETC. THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 24.03.2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA CAV ORDER 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the approval granted by the Udupi Planning Authority whereby it accorded an approval for formation of a single plot and is also challenging the plan that has been sanctioned and which has also been revised by the Udupi Town Municipal Council. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:17186 WP No. 32671 of 2024 2. These two orders were also subjected to an appeal but the said appeal has been dismissed and therefore, the petitioner is before this Court. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that he is the owner of the property bearing Sy.No.120/15 of Moodanidamboor village in Udupi Taluk and he had purchased the said property under a registered sale deed on 09.07.1984. It is contended that in the sale deed itself there was a right of way prescribed to his plot. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that one Muhammad Yusuf and his wife had sold the adjoining property bearing Sy.No.120/15 to M/s.Mandavi Real Estate Developers(R)—Respondent No.7 herein (referred to as “the Developers” for brevity) and prior to the sale, Muhammad Yusuf and his wife had obtained a single plot approval and amalgamation of sites but had suppressed the fact that there was a road in - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:17186 WP No. 32671 of 2024 existence in the plot in respect of which they had obtained amalgamation. 5. On the objections being raised by the petitioner, the Planning Authority had kept the approval in abeyance. 6. It is the case of the petitioner that he had instituted a suit in O.S.No.487 of 2016 seeking for a decree of permanent injunction against Muhammad Yusuf and another, and at the same time, Muhammad Yusuf had also instituted a suit in O.S. No.309 of 2018 against the petitioner. 7. It is admitted by the petitioner that during the pendency of this suit, Muhammad Yusuf sold the property to the Developers and they were also included in the said suit. The petitioner admits that in these two suits, a compromise was arrived at whereby it was agreed that the petitioner had a right of way. The specific terms of the compromise are - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:17186 WP No. 32671 of 2024 relevant for the case on hand and hence, the said compromise petition is reproduced in its entirety as under: “IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, UDUPI O.S.No.487/2016 O.S.No.309/2018 Between: 1. K.Ravindra Nayak 2. Surendra Nyak 3. Sathish Nayak ) Plaintiffs And: 1. M/s Mandavi Real Estate Developers(Regd.) ) Defendants COMPROMISE PETITION FILED UNDER ORDER XII RULE 3 OF CPC 1908 The parties have compromised the dispute as per the terms and conditions mentioned here below: 1. The parties are referred as plaintiffs and defendants as per the rank in O.S. No.487/2016 under this compromise although O.S. No.309/2018 is clubbed with it. 2. The plaintiffs in O.S. No.487/2016 have been granted with Right of way in the “B” Schedule property, as per the sketch annexed in the compromise Petition. The said Right of way is - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:17186 WP No. 32671 of 2024 absolute, consequently the counter claim in O.S. No.309/2018 is to be decreed as per the terms mentioned above. The Defendant No.6 is permanently restrained from disturbing/blocking or interfering in the right of way granted to the plaintiffs in OS No.487/2016. Consequently O.S. No.487/2016 is to be decreed under these terms. The annexed sketch shall be part of compromise decree. 3. The suit against defendant No.1 to 5 in O.S. Defendant No.487/2016 may be dismissed as not pressed. 4. The Defendants in O.S. No.309/2018 are restrained from obstructing or interfering in the development or construction in plaint “A” schedule property by the plaintiffs except using the Right Of way shown in annexed sketch. Suit of the plaintiff is to be decree in terms of the said condition. 5. The Defendant No.6 in O.S. No.487/2016 shall carry out construction in ”B” schedule property strictly as per Municipal By Law approved sketch issued by the Local Authority if any violation is reported is liable for action Under Law. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:17186 WP No. 32671 of 2024 6. The defendants’ No.6 in O.S. No.487/2016 and Plaintiffs in O.S. No.309/2018 shall close the old well existing in the property shown in “B” and “A” Schedule in both the suits. 7. The Parties shall bear their own Costs. Date:22.04.2022 Sd/- Sd/- Place:Udupi Plaintiffs Defendants No.1 personally and 2 & 3 Represented by No.1 as their GPA Holder Sd/- Sd/- Advocate for the Plaintiffs Advocate for Defendants” 8. As could be seen from the said compromise, the petitioner and respondent No.7 herein had agreed that the petitioner was being granted right of way in “B” schedule property and a sketch was also annexed to the compromise. It was made clear that this right of way was absolute and therefore the Developers were restrained from obstructing or blocking or interfering in the right of way. 9. At the same time, the petitioner herein was also restrained from obstructing or interfering in the - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:17186 WP No. 32671 of 2024 development of construction in the property which had been purchased by the Developers. 10. It was also made clear that the Developers would be entitled to carry out construction in their property as per the Municipal Bye-Laws and as per the approved sketch issued by the local authority. 11. It is therefore the common case of both parties that civil suits had been instituted between the parties and the said civil suit ended in a compromise dated 22.04.2022 whereby the petitioner was granted a right of way and the Developers were injuncted from obstructing or blocking this right of way that had been granted to the petitioner. 12. Correspondingly, it was also agreed that the petitioner would not in any way obstruct the construction proposed by the Developers and the same had to be done in accordance with the - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:17186 WP No. 32671 of 2024 approved Bye-Laws and the plan by the local authority. Suit ended in compromise. 13. The Developers secured an approval for a single plot on 02.04.2024. 14. The approval of this single plot basically permitted an amalgamation of various sub-survey numbers of Survey No.120, totally measuring 00-34 cents into one single plot. This single plot approval was granted on 02.04.2024 by the Udupi Urban Development Authority after it had collected a sum of Rs.4,08,350/- towards various cesses. 15. It may be pertinent to state here that it is the case of the petitioner that while securing a single plot approval, the road under which the petitioner had been granted a right of way was not indicated and therefore, this approval is per se illegal. 16. It is sought to be contended that this amalgamation of different plots could not have been granted when - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:17186 WP No. 32671 of 2024 there was a road running in between the plots and the amalgamation could have been permitted only if they were different plots abutting each other with no right of way being available to any third party. 17. Pursuant to the said approval granted for the single plot by the Urban Development Authority, the Developers applied for and secured a plan to put up a commercial structure. The commercial structure was essentially two buildings comprising of a basement, ground plus two floors. 18. After the approval was granted, the petitioner raised objections since the plan that had been approved did not indicate the existence of the road and it is admitted that the plan that was approved was also revised to the extent of indicating that a space was reserved as per the compromise decree and the same was for the enjoyment as per the terms of the compromise decree. - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:17186 WP No. 32671 of 2024 19. The petitioner, however, was aggrieved by this grant of approval and approached this Court by way of Writ Petition No.16535 of 2024. However, this Court observed that there is an alternative and efficacious remedy in the form of revision to the Regional Commissioner and therefore, the petitioner would have to approach the Appellate forum. This Court also observed that the Udupi Town Municipal Council should ensure that the construction should not be commenced for a period of two weeks in the road margin. 20. Pursuant to the said order, the petitioner preferred a Revision to the Regional Commissioner. The Regional Commissioner on consideration of the appeal and on examining the material placed before him, came to the conclusion that the approval accorded for a single plot layout could not be found fault with and the grant of approval to erect commercial structure was also in accordance with law. - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:17186 WP No. 32671 of 2024 21. He also observed that the construction to be put up by the Developers was in accordance with the sanctioned plan and therefore, there was no merit in the Revision. The Regional Commissioner accordingly dismissed the Revision. 22. As a consequence, the petitioner is before this Court by way of this writ petition. 23. Shri D.L.N.Rao, learned Senior Counsel, put forth the following arguments. 24. The approval granted for formation of a single plot by amalgamating several bits of land was wholly illegal since the approval did not take into consideration that there was a road running in between the property leading to the petitioner's property. 25. It was contended that the amalgamation and the approval for forming a single plot layout could have been permissible only if there was no road running between different bits of land. - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC:17186 WP No. 32671 of 2024 26. He contended that respondent No.7 could not have been permitted to erect commercial structures since it impeded the petitioner's exclusive use of road that had been conceded to in the civil suits. 27. The approval for construction of a ramp in front of the road of the petitioner's house and behind the proposed construction was causing severe impediment to the ingress and egress of the petitioner and this was clearly impermissible. 28. The Floor Area Ration (FAR) that was granted to the petitioner was without deducting the road portion, which was required to be earmarked and preserved according to the judgment of the Civil Courts and therefore, the entire plan approved was illegal. 29. The learned counsel appearing for the Municipal Council and Planning Authority contended that no illegality can be attributed to either the grant of approval for formation of a single plot layout or for - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC:17186 WP No. 32671 of 2024 grant of building plan since respondent No.7 did own the lands in question and was entitled to use the same in accordance with the existing Zonal Regulations and Building Bye-laws. 30. It was contended that since the respondent No.7 had ensured that the right of way provided to the petitioner had been set apart, no portion of that right-of-way was in any manner interfered with, and there was no prejudice caused to the petitioner and the petitioner could not oppose the plan, since essentially the building was being constructed within the land owned by respondent No.7. 31. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Developers submitted that they were the owners of the property having purchased it under registered sale deeds and they had sought for an amalgamation and approval of formation of single plot layout in accordance with law. - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC:17186 WP No. 32671 of 2024 32. The Planning Authority on taking into consideration that respondent No.7 owned several bits of land which could be amalgamated, having regard to the fact that it had access of 6.0 meter road, was entitled for amalgamation and hence, the approval could not be found fault with. 33. It was stated that the Regulations1 required that the amalgamated plot should have access to a 6.0 meter road and as a matter of fact, the entire plot had access through 24.00 meter road. 34. It was also stated that the amalgamated plot was earmarked for commercial use in the master plan drawn up for Udupi and therefore, the approval accorded by the planning authority could not be found fault with. 35. The Municipal Council submitted that since an approval had been granted by the Planning Authority 1 Regulations framed by the Government of Karnataka in exercise of powers conferred under Section 13-E of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961 vide Notification No.UDD 20 TTP 2023, dated 17.03.2023 - 17 - NC: 2025:KHC:17186 WP No. 32671 of 2024 for the formation of a single plot layout, it was bound to consider the application for construction of a commercial complex and the approval was granted in accordance with the building bye-laws. 36. On objection being raised by the petitioner, it was ensured that the right of way which had been granted to the petitioner was specifically earmarked and stated expressly in the building plan so as to ensure that no prejudice was caused to the petitioner. 37. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for responder No.7 ultimately stated that the petitioner had put up construction strictly in accordance with the plan that had been approved in its favour and after completion of the building, they had intimated the same to Udupi Municipal Council and the officials had also inspected the same and were in the process of issuing of an Occupancy Certificate. - 18 - NC: 2025:KHC:17186 WP No. 32671 of 2024 38. In order to verify whether the building that had been constructed was in accordance with the building plan, this Court directed an affidavit to be filed by the Commissioner of the Udupi Municipal Council and accordingly, an affidavit was filed by the Commissioner of Udupi City Municipality in which it was stated that the Developers had put up a building in accordance with the approved building plan and there was no deviation from the plans that are being approved. The Commissioner also stated that since the building had been completed in accordance with the building plan and the same was intimated to the Municipal Council, an Occupancy Certificate was also issued to the Developers on 04.03.2025. It is also contended that there is absolutely no merit in the petition and therefore requires to be dismissed. 39. From the facts narrated above, the question that arises for consideration in this petition is: - 19 - NC: 2025:KHC:17186 WP No. 32671 of 2024 “Whether the petitioner was justified in making the allegation that the amalgamation of different bits of land into a single plot layout was incorrect and whether the building plan approved thereafter by the Municipal Council would be legally valid ? ” 40. The State Government, in exercise of powers conferred under Section 13-E of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961 (for short, ‘the Act’) has framed Regulations viz., for amalgamation and subdivision including bifurcation of building sites on 17.03.2023. In this Regulation, the expression amalgamation is defined as follows: REGULATIONS Chapter- Amalgamation and Sub-division including bifurcation of building sites 1. Definitions i. "Amalgamation" means clubbing of two or more building sites into one.” - 20 - NC: 2025:KHC:17186 WP No. 32671 of 2024 41. The general conditions applicable for amalgamation and subdivision, including bifurcation of building sites, are stated as follows. “General conditions applicable for Amalgamation and Sub-division including Bifurcation of building sites (1) Amalgamation of Building sites : (a) Building site(s) which is a part of the layout/sub-division plan/Development scheme/schemes or Gramatana site(s) may be amalgamated with prior permission of the Chief Executive Officer of the authority. (b) The Chief Executive Officer of the authority in addition to ensuring that the building site does not fall in the survey number of the village, shall also have to obtain duly signed document hat establishes the site as Gramatana site from Tahsildar or such Competent Authority of the Revenue Department. (c) Amalgamation of the Building sites shall be considered only in the case of Building sites having absolute ownership and sites that are held by private individuals which are under lease agreement shall not be considered. - 21 - NC: 2025:KHC:17186 WP No. 32671 of 2024 (d) Building sites having similar land use shall only be amalgamated. (e) Building sites having road width of 6.0mt and above shall only be amalgamated. (f) Ownership of the sites to be amalgamated could be either single or multiple names /family members/company. (g) Amalgamation shall not be considered where Building sites are earmarked as EWS sites in the Sub-division plan or Layout Plan or Residential scheme. (h) An additional fee for such amalgamated building site shall be collected as prescribed under section 18(1) of the Act. (i) The local authority shall not issue khata for amalgamated building sites without the prior approval of the authority. (j) Permission under Section 15 of the Act for construction of building shall be given considering the amalgamated building site as a single building site and regulations for development in case of such amalgamated building site shall be reckoned with reference to the new dimensions and area of the amalgamated building site, no - 22 - NC: 2025:KHC:17186 WP No. 32671 of 2024 permission shall be granted for apartment building in the amalgamated building sites.” 42. Clause (2) relates to regulations relating to subdivisions including bifurcation of building sites and hence the same are not being considered in this case. 43. As could be seen from regulation 1, the building sites which are part of the layout or Gramathana sites could be amalgamated with the prior permission of the Chief Executive Officer of the Authority . 44. Admittedly, the lands in question are sites which did not fall within the survey number of village and they come within the purview of Udupi City Municipality. 45. Regulation 1(c) stipulates that the amalgamation should be considered only in case the building sites have the absolute ownership and are held by the private individuals. This condition is admittedly complied since the Developers did purchase different - 23 - NC: 2025:KHC:17186 WP No. 32671 of 2024 bits of land under different sale deeds and there is no issue regarding ownership. 46. Regulation 1(d) mandates that the building sites having similar land use can only be amalgamated. 47. Admittedly, as per the file provided by the Planning Authority, the entire area in question was earmarked for commercial purpose under the master plan and therefore, all the plots which were to be amalgamated could be amalgamated since they had similar land use. 48. Regulation 1(e) mandated that the building sites should have a road width of 6 meters and above for the purpose of being amalgamated. 49. For the purpose of clarity, different plots which were amalgamated, as per the sketch enclosed to the order of amalgamation (Annexure ‘C’) and at Annexure ‘L’, are extracted as follows: - 24 - NC: 2025:KHC:17186 WP No. 32671 of 2024 - 25 - NC: 2025:KHC:17186 WP No. 32671 of 2024 50. As could be seen from the said sketch (Annexure ‘C’), plots bearing 120/57, 120/56, 120/55 and 120/54 were abutting a 24.00 meter road and therefore, this condition was also complied with. 51. As could also be noticed from the sketch, all the plots were fundamentally abutting each other and all that the Planning Authority did was to consolidate all these similar plots into one single plot. 52. It is however the case of the petitioner that there was a road running between these plots and therefore, the amalgamation was impermissible. 53. In order to consider this argument, a reference to the compromise petition that had been entered into (which is extracted above) would be necessary. 54. As could be seen from clause (2) of the compromise, the plaintiff was only granted right of way so as to have access to his property. There was no road as - 26 - NC: 2025:KHC:17186 WP No. 32671 of 2024 such available in the plots. This right of way was granted in recognition of the right of way that had been granted to the petitioner under the sale deed under which he purchased the plot. 55. A right of way granted to have access to his property by the neighbouring landowners cannot be construed as a road being in existence between the plots. 56. It must be kept in mind that when an argument is advanced that there was a road in existence, it presupposes that every member of the public would have a right of access to that particular road. However, in the instant case, the right of way granted was exclusive to the petitioner alone and no member of the public had a right of way to have access to this path since it only leads to the property of the petitioner. 57. The petitioner is fundamentally trying to convert the right of way granted to him to put forth the - 27 - NC: 2025:KHC:17186 WP No. 32671 of 2024 contention that there was a road running between two different plots. In my view, since there is no road as such in the middle of plots, this argument cannot be accepted. 58. It is however to be noticed here that the petitioner has in fact been granted right of way and the right of way is earmarked by means of a sketch which is annexed to the decree. 59. It must be kept in mind that the petitioner entered into a compromise with respondent No.6 after respondent No. 6 had purchased the property and the right of way was clearly earmarked in the compromise decree. 60. The fact that the compromise uses the term ”granted the right of way” indicate that the petitioner only had the right to use this particular portion of the property to have access to his particular house and it can never be construed as a - 28 - NC: 2025:KHC:17186 WP No. 32671 of 2024 road as was sought to be argued by the learned Senior Counsel. 61. It may also be kept in mind that the petitioner was satisfied that if this right to have access to his property by the right of way being granted to him under the compromise, it would address his grievance and therefore, he not only entered into a compromise but also categorically stated that the Developers could carry out the construction in the property in question in accordance with the Bye-laws and the approved plan. It was therefore clear that petitioner had no objection for the plots being amalgamated through which he had right of way, and which could be utilized by the Developers for the purpose of putting up a construction and the only requirement of his was that the Developers put up construction in accordance with the Bye-laws. 62. So long as respondent No.6 adhered to these terms of the compromise and secured an approval of the - 29 - NC: 2025:KHC:17186 WP No. 32671 of 2024 Planning Authority as well as the Municipal Council, the petitioner cannot have right to object to the construction being put up by the Developers. 63. It may also be pertinent to notice here that the Municipal Commissioner has filed an affidavit stating that respondent No.6—the Developers have put up a construction strictly in accordance with the plan that had been approved in their favour and as a consequence, they were also issued an Occupancy Certificate. 64. In my view, since the petitioner had clearly indicated that he had no objection for the construction of a building in the plots through which he had a right of way and the requirement of the compromise petition that the Developers should obtain an approval for construction and the same had also been adhered to, the petitioner cannot be permitted to contend that the amalgamation and the approval accorded by the Municipal Authorities are illegal. - 30 - NC: 2025:KHC:17186 WP No. 32671 of 2024 65. It may be pertinent to state here that amalgamation of sites under the Regulations fundamentally permitted different bit of lands to be clubbed into one plot so as to enable effective utilization of the entire area. 66. If some third party right is involved and the third party right is also safeguarded in the amalgamation by the Municipal Authority which granted the approval to construct in the amalgamated plot, that third party who had a right—such as the petitioner in the form of a right of way—cannot be permitted to come in the way of this enjoyment of the property by the owners of the amalgamated plot. 67. The learned Senior Counsel places reliance on the following judgments to contend that the unauthorized construction should not be permitted: - 31 - NC: 2025:KHC:17186 WP No. 32671 of 2024 Sl. No. CITATIONS 1. Rajendra Kumar Barjatya and another V/s U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad and others-2024 SCC Online SC 3767 2. Gulam Dastagir V/s State of Karnataka and others- W.P. 200581/2024 3. M I Buildres Pvt Ltd V/s Radhey Shyam Sahu and others-(1999) 6 SCC 464 4. Sri. K.Ramdas Shenoy V/s The Chief Officers Town Munipal Council Udipi and others-(1974) 2 SCC 506 5. S P Chengalvaraya Naidu V/s Jagannath and Others- (1994) 1 SCC 1 68. This argument was on the premise that that the construction being put up by the Developer was illegal inasmuch as the amalgamation was illegal and the consequent approval granted by the Municipal Council would also be illegal. 69. As already stated above, the amalgamation of different bits of lands into one cannot be considered as illegal only because the petitioner had a right of way. - 32 - NC: 2025:KHC:17186 WP No. 32671 of 2024 70. It is also to be noticed here that in the instant case, the Developers have put up a construction after obtaining the approval from both the Planning Authority as well as from the Municipality. The Municipality has in fact certified the construction put up by respondent No.7 as in accordance with the sanctioned plan and has also been given an Occupancy Certificate. 71. If it is borne in mind that the amalgamated plot in question is earmarked for commercial use and a commercial structure has been put up in accordance with the plan approved by the Planning Authority, and hence, none of the citations upon which reliance is placed would be applicable. 72. I am therefore of the view that there is absolutely no merit in any of the contentions advanced by the petitioner and the petition is therefore dismissed. - 33 - NC: 2025:KHC:17186 WP No. 32671 of 2024 73. In view of the disposal of the petition, all pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of. Sd/- (N S SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE RK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 138