- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30233 WP No. 20186 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 20186 OF 2025 (BDA) BETWEEN: 1. K T PRAKASH S/O LATE. SRI. DODDATHIMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS R/O. NO.105, BHEL MAIN ROAD, RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA-560098. 2. SRI. NARASHIMA MURTHY.M S/O LATE. SRI. MUNINARASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS R/O NO. 1642, 5TH MAIN, OPP. COD QUARTES, KENGERI SATELLITE TOWN, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA-560060. 3. G. KRISHNA, S/O LATE. SRI. N. GOVINDA RAJU, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/O 30/1, 3RD CROSS, NEAR LAKSHMI RANGANATHA COLLEGE, MARUTHI NAGAR CHANDRA LAYOUT, BENGALURU-560072. 4. C.B. SHASHIDHARA S/O LATE SRI. H. BORAPPA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/O NO.556, SHARADHANAGAR, HASSAN ROAD, TIPTUR, Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30233 WP No. 20186 of 2025 TUMAKURU DISTRICT, KARNATAKA-572202, …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. PRATHITH H S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VIKAS SOUDHA, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU - 560001 2. THE COMMISSIONER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY T. CHOWDIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST BENGALURU 560020 3. TOWN PLANNING MEMBER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY T. CHOWDIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST BENGALURU 560020 …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT.RASHMI M.RAO, HCGP FOR R1 SRI.AJAY KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT BEARING NO. BDA/NOTICE/CLU- 162/22-23/1103/2023-24 DATED 19.08.2023 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3 AT ANNEXURE-A AS THE SAME IS ARBITRARY AND BAD IN THE EYES OF LAW AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30233 WP No. 20186 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER The petitioners are before this Court seeking the following prayer: "a. To issue a Writ of Certiorari or any direction to quash the impugned endorsement bearing No.BDA/Notice/CLU-162/22-23/1103/2023- 24 dated 19.08.2023 issued by the Respondent No.3 at Annexure-A as the same is arbitrary and bad in the eyes of law. b. To issue a Writ of Mandamus or any direction to consider the application bearing CLU-162 dated 26.08.2022 at Annexure-L preferred by the Petitioner with the Respondent No.3 within a period of 2 months; c. Grant such other relief as circumstances and contingencies may permit, in the interest of justice and equity." 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the identical issues have been considered and ordered by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. He would seek to place reliance upon the judgment rendered by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of M/s.Neelachal Real Estates LLP - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30233 WP No. 20186 of 2025 Limited vs. State of Karnataka and others [W.P.No.12711/2023 disposed of on 09.08.2024]. The Co-ordinate Bench held as follows: "2. The petitioner after taking due permission from the State under Section 109 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 had purchased the property which is the subject matter of the writ petition. It is submitted that presently the land falls within the jurisdiction of Bangalore Development Authority (BDA). Due to lapse of time and also for the reason that presently, the property is situated within the city limits of Bangalore, the petitioner requested respondent Nos.2 and 3 - BDA, for granting necessary permission for change of land use from agricultural to commercial purposes. For the said request, respondent No.3 - BDA has issued the impugned endorsement stating that they can consider the same only after necessary permission is obtained by the petitioner from the competent Authority. 3. The case of the petitioner is that the land is situated within the jurisdiction of Bangalore Development Authority and BDA is the planning Authority for the City of Bangalore and as per Section 14A of the Karnataka Town and Country - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30233 WP No. 20186 of 2025 Planning Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'), for change of land use from the master plan, an application is required to be made to the planning Authority and BDA is required to act upon the application made by the petitioner, but instead, the BDA has erroneously directed the petitioner to approach the Competent Authority to obtain necessary permission when it itself is the Competent Authority. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the BDA or the State Government are unable to counter the aforementioned preposition of law as submitted by the petitioner. 5. Section 81-B of the Act reads as under:- "[81-B. Consequences to ensue upon the constitution of the Bangalore Development Authority.— Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, with effect from the date on which the Bangalore Development Authority is constituted under the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 the following consequences shall ensue:— (i) the Bangalore Development Authority shall be the local Planning Authority for the local planning area comprising the City of Bangalore with jurisdiction over the area which the City Planning Authority for the City of Bangalore had jurisdiction immediately before the date on which the Bangalore Development Authority is constituted; - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30233 WP No. 20186 of 2025 (ii) the Bangalore Development Authority shall exercise the powers, perform the functions and discharge the duties under this Act as if it were a Local Planning Authority constituted for the Bangalore City; 6. Section 14A of the Act reads as under: "[14A. Change of land use from the [Master Plan].- (1) At any time after the date on which the [Master Plan] for an area comes into operation, the Planning Authority may, with the previous approval of the State Government, allow such changes in the land use or development from the [Master Plan] as may be necessitated by topographical or cartographical or other errors and omissions, or due to failure to fully indicate the details in the plan or changes arising out of the implementation of the proposals in [Master Plan] or the circumstances prevailing at any particular time, by the enforcement of the plan: Provided that.— (a) all changes are in public interest; (b) the changes proposed do not contravene any of the provisions of this Act or any other law governing planning, development or use of land within the local planning area; and (c) the proposal for all such changes are published in one or more daily newspapers, having circulation in the area, inviting objections from the public within a period of not less than fifteen days from the date of - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30233 WP No. 20186 of 2025 publication as may be specified by the Planning Authority. (2) The provisions of sub-section (2) and (3) of Section 14 shall apply mutatis mutandis to the change in land use or development from the [Master Plan]. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, whenever any land is procured by the Planning Authority, Local Authority, Karnataka Housing Board, Karnataka Slum Development Board, Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board, Karnataka Small Scale Industries Development Corporation or Rajiv Gandhi Rural Housing Corporation Limited for any public purpose, the land use of such land, excluding lands reserved under clauses (b), (c) and (f) of sub- section (1) of Section 12 shall be deemed to be the land use for the purpose for which it has been procured. (4) The Planning Authority shall levy such fee as may be prescribed by the Government before allowing such change of land use from the Master Plan.]" 7. From the perusal of the aforementioned provisions, it is clear that BDA is the planning Authority for City of Bangalore and for any change of land use, an application needs to be made to the BDA and the same should be considered by the BDA in the manner known to law. 8. For the aforementioned reasons, the impugned endorsement dated 21.05.2022 bearing - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30233 WP No. 20186 of 2025 No. ¨ÉAC¥Áæ/£ÀAiÉÆøÀ/ CL-07/408/2022-23 vide Annexure- 'A' to the writ petition issued by respondent No.3 is hereby set aside. 9. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are directed to consider the case of the petitioner, make suitable recommendations and obtain necessary permission from the State, if required in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders thereafter within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 10. Writ petition is accordingly disposed of. 11. It is needless to state that, if the petitioner is not satisfied with the decision of the respondents, he is always at liberty to challenge the same. 12. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of." 3. Sri Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 is not in a position to dispute the position of law as is considered by the Co-ordinate Bench. 4. In that light, the petition deserves to succeed and become entitled to the same order. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30233 WP No. 20186 of 2025 5. For the aforesaid reasons, the following: ORDER (i) Writ petition is accordingly disposed of. (ii) Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are directed to consider the case of the petitioner, make suitable recommendations and obtain necessary permission from the State, if required in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders thereafter within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. (iii) It is needless to state that, if the petitioners are not satisfied with the decision of the respondents, they are always at liberty to challenge the same. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE VM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 30