- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14512 WP No. 107079 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 107079 OF 2023 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: SHARDABAI W/O CHANDRAKANT JANAMANE, AGE. 86 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD, R/O. ‘KAMAL KUNJA’ BUILDING, YALLAKISHETTAR COLONY, P.B. ROAD, DHARWAD- 580001. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. MALLIKARJUNSWAMY B. HIREMATH, ADVOCATE) AND: THE HUBLI URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, HUBBALLI- 580008, BY ITS COMMISSIONER. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. R.H. ANGADI, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITON IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA IS PRAYING TO, DECLARE THAT IN TERMS OF SECTION 32(8) OF THE KARNATAKA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITIES ACT, 1987 THERE IS A DEEMED PERMISSION IN RESPECT OF APPLICATION DATED. 31-10-2022 AT ANNEXURE-D AND LAYOUT PLAN WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-D1 AND ETC., VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Digitally signed by VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Location: High Court of Karnataka Dharwad Bench Date: 2025.11.07 11:53:48 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14512 WP No. 107079 of 2023 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA) 1. Petitioner is before this Court seeking the following prayer: a. “Declare that in terms of Section 32(8) of the Karnataka Urban Development Authorities Act, 1987 there is a deemed permission in respect of application dated. 31-10-2022 at Annexure-D and layout plan which is produced at Annexure-D1. b. Issue such other writ or order as deemed fit in the interest of justice.” 2. Heard Sri. Mallikarjun Swamy Hiremath, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, and Sri. R.H. Angadi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 3. The petitioner purchased land in Block No.62/13, measuring 20 guntas, and thereafter applied for conversion of the said property from agricultural to non-agricultural purposes. The said conversion was duly granted. Subsequent thereto, the petitioner submitted an application seeking permission to form a - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14512 WP No. 107079 of 2023 single-plot layout and for approval of the building plan. The requisite fee for such approval was paid to the competent authority. However, the said application was not approved, compelling the petitioner to approach this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in terms of Section 32(8) of the Karnataka Urban Development Authorities Act, 1987, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short), there exists a deeming provision whereby, if no order is passed by the authority within six months from the date of receipt of the application, the approval shall be deemed to have been granted. 5. Learned counsel submits that as no orders have been passed within the stipulated period, the petitioner’s plan must be deemed to have been approved in accordance with the Act. 6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, Sri. R.H. Angadi, makes a feeble attempt to contend that a notice had been issued to the petitioner during the interregnum, and therefore, the deeming provision would not come into play. 7. However, despite repeated queries by this Court, learned counsel for the respondent is unable to produce even a - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14512 WP No. 107079 of 2023 tittle of evidence to demonstrate that any such notice was, in fact, issued to the petitioner during the interregnum i.e., between the date of submission of the application and the expiry of the six-month period. 8. Section 32(8) of the Act reads as follows: “32(8) If the Authority does not refuse sanction within six months from the date of the application under sub-section (2) or form the date of receipt of all information asked for under sub-section(7), such sanction shall be deemed to have been granted and the applicant may proceed to form the extension or layout or to make the street, but not so as to contravene any or the provisions of this Act and the rules or bye-laws made under it.” 9. Section 32(8) of the Act contains a deeming provision. The effect of this provision is that if the application is not considered within the stipulated time frame, it shall be deemed to have been accepted. 10. In the absence of any material to show that a notice was issued within the said period, it must be construed that the rigor of Section 32(8) of the Act has come into operation, and - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14512 WP No. 107079 of 2023 accordingly, the petitioner’s plan is deemed to have been approved. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the plan shall be processed strictly in accordance with law, and that the petitioner has already left 9 metres of space for the road in front of his property for the proposed construction of a warehouse. He contends that under the applicable zoning regulations, 15 metres of road width is required and 7.5 metres each to be left by the petitioner and the adjoining owner and that he has duly complied with this requirement. 12. Be that as it may, in view of the aforesaid submissions and the rival contentions advanced, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to process the petitioner’s building plan and accord sanction thereto, strictly in accordance with law, without brooking any further delay. 13. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE AC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 42