- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26190 WP No. 18834 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO.18834 OF 2025 (LB-BMP) BETWEEN: 1. M/S. VISHNU PRIYA GROUP OF BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS A PARTNERSHIP FIRM REGISTERED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE PARTNERSHIP ACT, 1932 HAVING OFFICE AT NO.1-7-331 CHAITANYAPURI DILSUKHNAGAR, HYDERABAD-500060 ALSO HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.187, PEARL WORK A BLOCK AECS LAYOUT, GANESH TEMPLE ROAD KUNDANAHALLI BENGALURU REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER SRI M.ANIL KUMAR 2. SRI M.ANIL KUMAR AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS S/O SRI M.HARI KISHAN RESIDING AT NO.VILLA NO.77/1 PHASE 1, ADARSH PALM MEADOWS RAMAGONDANAHALLI WHITEFIELD BENGALURU - 560066 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI.SHIRISH KRISHNA, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by NAGARAJA B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26190 WP No. 18834 of 2025 AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT M.S.BUILDING DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU -560001 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY 2. BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE N R SQUARE BENGALURU -560002 REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER 3. JOINT DIRECTOR (TOWN PLANNING - NORTH) BBMP, N R SQUARE HEAD OFFICE BUILDING ANNEX BUILDING BENGALURU - 560002 4. BANGALORE METROPOLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (BMRDA) NO.1, ALI ASKAR ROAD BENGALURU -560052 REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.H.K.KENCHEGOWDA, AGA FOR R.1; SRI.PAWAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R.2 AND R.3; SRI.YOGESH D NAYAK, ADVOCATE FOR R.4) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ONLINE COMMUNICATION DATED 13.06.2025 ISSUED BY R-3 JOINT DIRECTOR (TOWN PLANNING-NORTH) BBMP REJECTING THE - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26190 WP No. 18834 of 2025 PETITIONERS APPLICATION FOR MODIFIED PLAN SANCTION (ANNX-A) AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL ORDER The captioned writ petition is filed assailing the impugned endorsement dated 13.06.2025 issued by respondent No.3 rejecting petitioners' application for modified sanction plan by placing reliance on the proposed Notification dated 16.03.2023. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 and learned counsel appearing for BBMP and learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4 – Authority. 3. The petitioners, who have entered into registered Development Agreement with Sri.Sathya Sai Health and Education Trust for development of immovable property, applied for building plan sanction for residential - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26190 WP No. 18834 of 2025 and commercial projects. The petitioners assert that the same was approved by the BBMP on 28.08.2020. The petitioners' claimed that though substantial construction is made in terms of the approved plan, however, Notification dated 16.03.2023 was issued by respondent No.4 proposing a new 90 meter width road reserved for the Intermediate Ring Road (IRR), which was yet to be incorporated in the formally approved master plan. 4. This prompted the petitioners to apply for modified building plan and the same is rejected on the basis of an unfinalized IRR Notification. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would point out that this issue will not detain this Court for a long in view of two judgments rendered by the Co-ordinate Bench substantially addressing the issue on hand. 6. This factual matrix is not seriously disputed by the learned Standing Counsel appearing for BBMP as well - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26190 WP No. 18834 of 2025 as learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4 – BBMP Authority. Before this Court delves into the matter, this Court deems it fit to cull out para No.8 of the judgment rendered in W.P.No.28231/2024, which reads as under; "8. The impugned Regulations, and further, the impugned Endorsement dated 10.10.2024 issued by the fourth respondent cannot be sustained. The petitioner must be granted all permissible approvals/permissions by not just the BBMP but also by the second respondent without insisting on the land which would be required as a consequence of alignment in terms of the Notification dated 16.03.2023. If there is any decision later to continue the alignment through the petitioner's subject property, the development by the petitioner will be subject to such decision and without prejudice to the petitioner's rights as against such conclusion." 7. In an identical matter, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court was called upon to consider the validity of an endorsement issued by the authorities, which was based solely on a proposed and unfinalized Notification pertaining to the Intermediate Ring Road (IRR). In the portion of the judgment relevant to the present case, the Co-ordinate Bench categorically held that permissions or approvals - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26190 WP No. 18834 of 2025 cannot be denied merely on the basis of a draft or proposed notification which has not been finalized or brought into legal effect. The Bench further clarified that unless and until such a notification is finalized, the competent authorities, including the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP), are under an obligation to consider and process applications for building plans and other related permissions in accordance with the prevailing Zoning Regulations and the Revised Master Plan, 2015 (RMP-2015), without reference to any tentative land acquisition or reservation indicated in the proposed IRR alignment notification dated 16.03.2023. 8. In the present case, the petitioners seek parity with the relief granted in W.P. No.28231/2024, which was disposed of by the Co-ordinate Bench under similar facts and circumstances. The petitioners have approached the authorities seeking modification of the sanctioned building plan, which was declined by the issuance of the impugned endorsement. The endorsement cites the Notification - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26190 WP No. 18834 of 2025 dated 16.03.2023 and proceeds to reject the application on the ground that the petitioners have failed to maintain a 90-meter width in accordance with the proposed IRR alignment. The authorities have further directed the petitioners to re-submit the modified plan strictly in compliance with the proposed road alignment, purportedly as per the RMP-2015 and the said notification. 9. This Court is of the considered view that the reasoning assigned in the impugned endorsement suffers from the same legal infirmity as was noted in W.P.No.28231/2024. The reliance on a non-final and proposed alignment, which has not culminated in a final notification under the relevant Town Planning or Land Acquisition statutes, cannot form the basis for declining permissions or approvals sought under the applicable building bye-laws or zoning regulations. The BBMP and other authorities are bound to act in accordance with law and cannot refuse permission merely on speculative - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26190 WP No. 18834 of 2025 grounds that land may, in the future, be required for a public purpose under an unfinalized notification. 10. Accordingly, the petitioners are entitled to the same relief as granted by the Co-ordinate Bench. The impugned endorsement, being contrary to the settled legal position and in violation of the petitioners’ statutory rights under the applicable planning laws, is liable to be quashed. 11. For the foregoing reasons, this Court proceeds to pass the following; ORDER (i) The writ petition is allowed. (ii) The impugned communication dated 13.06.2025 issued by respondent No.3 – the Joint Director (Town Planning – North), BBMP, is hereby quashed and set aside. (iii) Respondent No.3 is directed to reconsider the petitioners’ application seeking modification of the approved building plan strictly in terms of the prevailing - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26190 WP No. 18834 of 2025 provisions of the Revised Master Plan, 2015 (RMP-2015), without insisting upon reservation of land for the proposed Intermediate Ring Road (IRR) alignment as per the draft Notification dated 16.03.2023. (iv) It is, however, clarified that the issuance of a modified building plan, if any, shall be subject to any final decision that may be taken by the competent authority regarding the continuation or finalization of the IRR alignment as proposed in the Notification dated 16.03.2023. Such consideration shall be without prejudice to the petitioners’ rights to challenge or contest any future acquisition or planning action, if undertaken pursuant to the said notification. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE NBM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 19