- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33886 WP No. 2477 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT PETITION NO.2477 OF 2025 (LB-BMP) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. SUMITHRAMMA D/O CHIKKAVENKATA REDDY AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.70, 3RD CROSS, 2ND BLOCK, KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE-560 034 REPRESENTED BY HER GPA HOLDER M/S. REDDY STRUCTURES PRIVATE LIMITED A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956, HAVING IT'S OFFICE AT NO.133/1 2ND FLOOR, THE RESIDENCY, RESIDENCY ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 025 REPRESENTED BY IT'S AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY SRI V VIJAYA BHASKARA REDDY. 2. M/S. REDDY STRUCTURES PRIVATE LIMITED A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956, HAVING IT'S OFFICE AT NO.133/1 2ND FLOOR, THE RESIDENCY, RESIDENCY ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 025 Digitally signed by GEETHA P G Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33886 WP No. 2477 of 2025 REPRESENTED BY IT'S AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY SRI V VIJAYA BHASKARA REDDY S/O LATE V VENKATARAMI REDDY, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. RADHANANDAN B.S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, VIDHANASOUDHA, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE - 560 001 REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY. 2. BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE N R SQUARE, BANGALORE - 560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER. 3. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR TOWN PLANNING, BBMP MAHADEVPURA ZONE BANGALORE - 560 048. 4. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (HOODI) HOODIE SUBDIVISION, MAHADEVPURA ZONE BBMP, BANGALORE - 560 048. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. H.K. KENCHEGOWDA, AGA FOR R.1; SRI. K.B. MONESH KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R.2 TO R.4.) - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33886 WP No. 2477 of 2025 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 14.10.2024 VIDE BBMP ADTP(MV)/PR/235/2024-25 AT ANNEXURE-AC ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3, ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN ORAL ORDER 1. Petitioner No.1 is said to be the owner of a land measuring 1 acre 2 guntas situated in Survey No.44/2, Hoodi village, K.R.Puram Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk, which has been duly converted for residential purposes. She has entered into a joint development agreement with petitioner No.2 to develop the said property to build a residential apartment complex. The property comes within the jurisdiction of respondent nos.2 to 4-Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike ('BBMP' for short). At the request of petitioner No.2, respondent No.3-Assistant Director of Town Planning of BBMP has sanctioned the plan for construction of multi storied apartment complex in favour - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33886 WP No. 2477 of 2025 of the petitioners (ground plus three floors). Petitioners are said to have put up a construction as per the sanctioned plan. It is further submitted that the petitioners started constructing the property only after obtaining the necessary commencement certificate. However, after construction of the structural work of all the floors, before interior work is done, an order dated 14.10.2024 (vide Annexure-AC to the writ petition) is passed by respondent No.3 wherein the sanctioned plan and the commencement certificate have been withdrawn. The said impugned order is passed on the allegation that the petitioners were required to commence construction only upon formation of a road as indicated in the sanctioned plan and that construction has been done without formation of the road. Subsequent to issuance of the impugned order dated 14.10.2024, a letter dated 06.12.2024 is issued to the petitioners by respondent No.4 (vide Annexure-AD to the writ petition) wherein the petitioners have been called upon to stop further - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33886 WP No. 2477 of 2025 construction as the plan sanction and the commencement certificate granted to them have been withdrawn and the petitioners were intimated that a joint inspection would be conducted in respect of the property constructed to take further action. Aggrieved by the impugned order and the impugned letter (vide Annexures-AC and AD to the writ petition), the petitioners have preferred this writ petition with the following prayers: "a) Issue a Writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other Writ, direction or order by quashing the impugned order dated 14.10.2024 vide BBMP ADTP(MV)/PR/235/2024-25 at ANNEXURE-AC issued by the Respondent no.3. b) Issue a Writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other Writ, direction or order by quashing the impugned order dated 6.12.2024 vide BBMP/AEE/HSD/ 494/2024-25, at Annexure-AD issued by the Respondent no.4. c) To pass any such other order/s, which this H'ble Court may deem fit to grant by moulding such reliefs to the parties hereto, in the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice." - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33886 WP No. 2477 of 2025 2. The case of the petitioners is that, they commenced construction on the property only after obtaining the necessary plan sanction and the commencement certificate. It is submitted that at the time of issuing the plan sanction and the commencement certificate, the concerned officers of BBMP have visited the site, examined the same and as everything was found to be in order, the necessary plan sanction and the commencement certificate have been issued. It is submitted that the petitioners have not deviated from the sanctioned plan and have put up the structure as per the sanctioned plan. It is also submitted that the approach road to the property does not belong to the petitioners and it is a public road and the petitioners are not obliged to form a road as demanded in the impugned order. It is further submitted that it was never a pre-condition for sanctioning the plan. It is also submitted that the land will be converted for residential purposes only after obtaining all the required information from the concerned officers and only if there is - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33886 WP No. 2477 of 2025 an approach road for the property concerned. It is also submitted that a plan will be sanctioned by BBMP for construction of a building only when there is an approach road and the FAR granted will be based upon the width of the road. It is further submitted that even otherwise, the petitioners are willing to form the road in front of their property, if required. It is also submitted that the petitioners have not misrepresented to the authorities concerned warranting withdrawal of the commencement certificate and the sanctioned plan. It is submitted that the allegation made in the impugned order (vide Annexure-AC to the writ petition) does not permit the BBMP to withdraw the sanctioned plan and the commencement certificate as it has been done. On the said grounds, it is prayed that the impugned order as well as the impugned letter (vide Annexures-AC and AD to the writ petition) be set aside. 3. Learned counsel for the BBMP admits that the petitioners have obtained the necessary conversion and a - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33886 WP No. 2477 of 2025 plan has been sanctioned in favour of the petitioners and a commencement certificate also has been issued in favour of the petitioners. He further admits that the structure is constructed in accordance with the sanctioned plan. He also admits that the impugned order (vide Annexure-AC to the writ petition) is issued only on the ground that a road has not been formed by the petitioners in front of their property. 4. However, the learned counsel for the BBMP submits that though it is not specifically mentioned in the impugned order, the real reason for canceling the sanctioned plan and the commencement certificate granted in favour of the petitioners is that one Girish Kumar Naidu made a complaint against the petitioners to the authorities concerned as well as Hon'ble Lokayukta to the effect that the petitioners have illegally encroached upon Rajakaluve; that there is no approach road and that a high tension wire passes on the property of the petitioners and in case of blockage of the Rajakaluve, - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33886 WP No. 2477 of 2025 during monsoon season, there will be flooding and it will cause undue hardship to the persons living in the area and upon the enquiry conducted by the jurisdictional Tahsildar and the Assistant Director of Land Records, it has been reported that the allegations made by Girish Kumar Naidu is correct and for that reason, the sanctioned plan and the commencement certificate have been withdrawn. 5. In his reply to the submission made by counsel for BBMP, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the contentions of BBMP are not correct. It is submitted that once the property comes within the limits of BBMP, the revenue officers have no jurisdiction over the same. 6. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.209/2020 between Hewlett Packard (India) Software Operation Private Limited vs. Tashildhar (DD 01.10.2020) wherein at para 20, it has been held as under: "20. The object of the KLR Act is to regulate the user of land and collect land revenue. The Division Bench of - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33886 WP No. 2477 of 2025 this Court in the case of J.M.Narayan and others (supra) has held that the KLR Act would cease to be applicable no sooner the land is brought within the corporation limits. The law laid down in the aforesaid case has been followed by the Division Bench and Coordinate Bench of this court when the question regarding, whether permission of the Deputy Commissioner is required or not under Section 95 of the KLR Act for diverting the lands situated within corporation limits for agricultural purposes fell for consideration. The Division Bench and Coordinate Benches following the law laid down in the case of J.M.Narayan (supra) in unequivocal terms have held that the KLR Act is not applicable to lands situated within corporation limits and as such the permission of the Deputy Commissioner under Section 5 of the KLR Act for diverting the land is not required. Hence, the submission of the learned Senior counsel appearing for respondent No.2 that the law laid down in the case of J.M.Narayana (supra) is confined to a dispute with regard to the payment of court fee and not relating to other matters to be dealt with under the provisions of KLR Act is not acceptable. If the KLR Act ceases to apply to lands falling within the limits of corporation, it is implied that the Tahsildar has no jurisdiction to carry out survey work and fix boundaries in respect of the land in question. The law laid down in the case of J.M.Narayan and others (supra) which has been followed by this Court in catena of cases is squarely applicable to the case on hand." - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33886 WP No. 2477 of 2025 7. The aforesaid judgment makes it clear that the Tahsildar has no jurisdiction to carry out survey work and fix boundaries in respect of the land falling within the jurisdiction of the BBMP and it is for the officers of BBMP to do the same. 8. The petitioners have also placed reliance on the revised master plan (vide Annexure-AH to the writ petition) which does not show the existence of any Rajakaluve as contended by the BBMP. The said revised master plan is not disputed by the respondents. 9. It is contended by the petitioners that if there is a conflict between the revised master plan and the village map, the revised master plan will prevail and reliance is placed upon a decision of this Court in W.P.No.44277/2011 and connected matters between Sobha Developers Limited vs. Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike and Others [DD 10.02.2012] wherein at paras 12, 13, 14 and 21, it has been held as under: - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33886 WP No. 2477 of 2025 "12. It is urged by him that there is no power or jurisdiction vested with the 1st respondent to enforce the village map ignoring the revised Master Plan and the roads, streets and other things provided for in the revised Master Plan in the locality. In other words, according to him, the BBMP had failed to establish that the land was covered by a Nala and pathway belonging to Government by producing any valid documents in any proceedings validly instituted before any Court of law. 13. Sri K.G.Raghavan, learned Senior Counsel has taken me through the provisions contained under the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, particularly Sections 12, 14, 26 and 76. To support his contention that when there is a Master Plan prepared by the Planning Authority, the same gets superimposed over any village map that might have been in existence prior to the area being included in the Comprehensive Development Plan and the Master Plan prepared and revised. He has further contended, by referring to Section 61-A of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, that there is no power vested in the Standing Committee to sit in judgment over the plan sanctioned by the Planning Authority as all works in private land are being regulated by the planning authority. The impugned endorsement issued stating that the Standing Committee is seized of the matter has been attacked as exfacie illegal. His contention is that once the Planning Authority sanctions the building plan and permits the construction in terms of the Master Plan prepared and strictly in conformity with the rules and regulations framed, it will not be open for the Corporation at the fag - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33886 WP No. 2477 of 2025 end when the entire construction is almost completed, to deny road cutting permission on the ground that the construction put up was on a pathway or a Nala as depicted in a village map. He urges that principles of promissory estoppel applies. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Apex Court in this regard in the case of STATE OF PUNJAB VS NESTLE INDIA LTD. AND ANOTHER - (2004)6 SCC 465. He has also relied on the judgment of the Division Bench in the case of H.V. VIJAYARAGHAVAN AND OTHERS VS MALATHI DAS & OTHERS 2009(4) KCCR 2313, to contend that once Master Plan is prepared and finalized, any change in the same can only be as per Section 14A as interpreted by the Supreme Court in S.N.CHANDRASHEKAR AND ANOTHER VS STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS - (2006)3 SCC 208. 14. He has furnished the list of dates and events starting from the date on which the application was submitted to the Town Planning Member, Bangalore Development Authority on 1.2.2006 ranging over various stages through which the entire process of obtaining the sanction plan, commencement, construction and other activities have gone on. He therefore contends that the respondents are estopped from alleging that the petitioners deviated the natural course of storm water drain from the Centre of their property to the western most periphery. 15. XXX 16. XXX 17. XXX - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33886 WP No. 2477 of 2025 18. XXX 19. XXX 20. XXX 21. As rightly contended by the Counsel for the petitioner, once the Master Plan is prepared indicating the existence of roads, drains, streets, etc., and particularly the Planning Authority at an undisputed point of time had prepared a sketch of the lands wherein no such passage of Nala in the middle of the property or the existence of pathway therein was shown, it is not open for the Corporation at such a belated stage to raise an objection solely based on the village map to contend that the existing Nala was deviated by the petitioner. It is to be noticed that the draft of the Master Plan would be published and sent to the Government enclosing the report of the survey conducted and after taking into consideration all the relevant aspects, the Master Plan submitted by the Planning Authority viz., BDA for approval and the same is approved. The BBMP, at no stage had raised any objection nor is there anything to show that anybody had raised any objection to the contents of the revised Master Plan when the objections were called for. The Revised Master Plan 2015 has come into effect on 25.06.2007. The Master Plan contains showing of lands, street pattern, areas reserved for parks, playgrounds and other civic amenities or for public purpose as also areas of special control and development. In such circumstances, the objection raised by the Corporation at the stage of grant of underground cable - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33886 WP No. 2477 of 2025 connection to the occupants of the premises is wholly unjustified. Section 505 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976, makes it clear that exercise of powers by the Corporation shall be in conformity with the provisions of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961, with regard to any matter relating to land use or development as defined in the explanation to Section 14." 10. Thus, the effect of aforementioned two judgments is that once the property comes within the jurisdiction of BBMP, survey of the same is the responsibility of the BBMP and the Tahsildar will not have any jurisdiction over the same and in case of any conflict between the revised master plan and the village map, the revised master plan will prevail. 11. In the instant case, admittedly, the revised master plan does not show the existence of any Rajakaluve as contended by the respondents. Further, it is noticed that pursuant to the complaint received from the said Girish Kumar Naidu, the survey of the property in question, has been conducted by the concerned officers of BBMP and a - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33886 WP No. 2477 of 2025 letter in this regard has been issued by respondent No.3 to the complainant-Girish Kumar Naidu wherein it has been stated that the construction being put up by the petitioners is in accordance with law; that the high tension wire is about 6.79 meters away from the property of the petitioners; and the canal that is alleged to be in existence, is at a distance of 16 meters from the property of the petitioners. This clearly indicates that there is no impediment for the petitioners to construct the property as per the sanctioned plan and the commencement certificate. 12. Even otherwise, the letter issued by the Tahsildar to the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner, even though he had no jurisdiction to survey, states that there is a trench (ºÀrØ »rzÀ ºÀ¼Àî) which has been closed by the petitioners. It does not disclose existence of any Rajakaluve as alleged. Further, the undisputed revised master plan does not show the existence of any Rajakaluve as alleged. Further, as already mentioned above, no valid reason is assigned for - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33886 WP No. 2477 of 2025 cancellation of the sanctioned plan or commencement certificate granted in favour of the petitioners. 13. Respondent-BBMP places reliance upon a decision of the Apex Court in W.P.(Civil) No.295/2022 and connected matters [DD 13.11.2024] wherein at para 91, it has been held as under: "91. At the outset, we clarify that these directions will not be applicable if there is an unauthorized structure in any public place such as road, street, footpath, abutting railway line or any river body or water bodies and also to cases where there is an order for demolition made by a Court of law." 14. Based on the said judgment, it is contended that, as the property of the petitioners is constructed by closing the Rajakaluve, the respondents are entitled to have the same demolished. In my opinion, the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the aforementioned judgment is not applicable to the facts of the instant case as under the present facts and circumstances of the case, it has to be concluded that the petitioners have not encroached upon the Rajakaluve. - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33886 WP No. 2477 of 2025 15. For the aforementioned reasons, the impugned order and the impugned letter (vide Annexures-AC and AD to the writ petition) are liable to be set aside. Hence, the following: ORDER (i) The impugned order dated 14.10.2024 passed by respondent No.3 (vide Annexure-AC to the writ petition) is hereby set aside; (ii) The impugned letter dated 06.12.2024 issued by respondent No.4 (vide Annexure-AD to the writ petition) is hereby set aside; (iii) The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly; (iv) Pending I.As., if any, stand disposed of. Sd/- (M.I.ARUN) JUDGE hkh. List No.: 1 Sl No.: 68