- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37128 WP No. 19854 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 19854 OF 2025 (BDA) BETWEEN: SRI. VINOD ALVA, S/O LATE ANAND ALVA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/AT ALVA FARMS, NEAR REVA UNIVERSITY KOGILU VILLAGE, YELAHANKA HOBLI, BANGALORE-560063. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. VINOD KUMAR M., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST, BENGALURU-560020. 2. ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR TOWN PLANNING, BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST, BENGALURU-560020. Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37128 WP No. 19854 of 2025 3. STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, VIKASA SOUDHA, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. AJAY KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2; SRI. M. RAJAKUMAR, AGA FOR R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT BEARING NO. BEN A PRA/NA YO SA /DLP-10/2021-22/1303/2025-26 DTD 17.06.2025 PASSED BY THE R-2 VIDE ANNEXURE-M DECLARING THE SAME AS VOID, ARBITRARY, ILLEGAL, WITHOUT JURISDICTION AND INAPPROPRIATE IN LAW AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37128 WP No. 19854 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER The petitioner is before this Court seeking the following prayers: "a) Issue a writ of certiorari and quash the impugned endorsement bearing NO BEN A PRA / NA YO SA / DLP-10/2021-22/1303/2025-26 dated 17/06/2025, passed by Respondent No.2 Vide ANNEXURE- M declaring the same as void, arbitrary, Illegal, without jurisdiction and inappropriate in law. b) Issues a writ of Mandamus directing the Respondent No 2 to reconsider the application of the petitioner for change of land use dated 01/12/2021 and take appropriate decision / pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible c) Pass such other writ/s, direction/s, order/s as deemed fit to pass under the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity." 2. Heard Sri.Vinod Kumar M., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri.Ajay Kumar, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2, Sri.M.Rajkumar, learned AGA appearing for respondent No.3 and have perused the material on record. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37128 WP No. 19854 of 2025 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the respondents in unison would submit that the issue in the lis is identical to what is decided by the Coordinate Bench in W.P.No.19174/2022, disposed on 15.11.2022. The order reads as follows: "In this petition, petitioner has sought for quashing of the endorsement at Annexure – J dated 26.08.2022 passed by respondent No.2 and for other reliefs. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record. 3. In addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in the memorandum of petition and referring to the material on record, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner invites my attention to the material on record including application at Annexure – H dated 21.06.2022 submitted by the petitioner in order to point out that requirement / entitlement of the petitioner to seek change of land use under Sections 14 and 14-A of the Karnataka Town and County Planning Act, 1961 have been complied with by the petitioner. 4. It is the grievance of the petitioner that despite the petitioner submitting the said application on 21.06.2022 along with relevant documents and complying with all statutory requirements, respondent No.2 / BDA has proceeded to issue the impugned endorsement keeping the request for change of land use in abeyance on the erroneous premise that the said land would stand covered by the proposed acquisition for further extension of Arkavathi Layout and as such, it was not permissible to consider or process the application for - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37128 WP No. 19854 of 2025 change of land use for the present. In this context, it is submitted that the said reason assigned by the respondents in keeping the application for land use in abeyance is not a valid or legal reason as contemplated under Section 14A of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961 and consequently, on this ground alone, the impugned endorsement at Annexure – J deserves to be quashed and respondents are to be directed to consider and process the application of the petitioner and take appropriate decision / pass appropriate orders at the earliest. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2 / BDA submits that in view of the approval dated 24.02.2021 granted by the State Government followed by the Communication dated 20.11.2021 addressed by the State Government to the respondent / BDA, the respondent / BDA was fully justified in issuing the impugned endorsement, which does not warrant interference by this Court in the present petition. 6. By way of reply, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that undisputedly no scheme containing necessary particulars and details as required under Section 16 of the BDA Act has been framed or formulated as on today and preliminary notification under Section 17 of the BDA Act has not been issued by the BDA even till today and as such, the respondents cannot place reliance upon the Communication between the BDA and State Government in order to issue the impugned endorsement, which deserves to be quashed. 7. I have given my anxious consideration to the rival submissions and perused the material on record. 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 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37128 WP No. 19854 of 2025 subject land cannot be construed or treated as a reason for non-consideration of application under Section 14 or 14A of the Karnataka 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. 10. In the result, I pass the following: ORDER (i) Petition is hereby allowed. (ii) Impugned endorsement dated 26.08.2022 passed by respondent No.2 vide Annexure – J is hereby set aside (iii) The respondents 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 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37128 WP No. 19854 of 2025 as expeditiously as possible and within a period of three months from today." Therefore, the issues as answered by the Coordinate Bench of this Court supra and in the light of the issues standing covered on all its fours, the writ petition stands disposed on the very same findings and the observations. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE CBC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 161