- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40359 WP No. 10100 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA WRIT PETITION NO.10100 OF 2024 (BDA) BETWEEN: 1. SRI H.S. NARAYANASWAMY AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, S/O LATE SHAMANNA REDDY, 2. SMT. N. KALAVATHI AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, W/O H.S. NARAYANASWAMY, 3. SRI VIVEK .N AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, S/O H.S. NARAYANASWAMY, 4. SMT. PRATHIBHA .N AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, D/O H.S. NARAYANASWAMY, 5. SRI S. RAMACHANDRA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, S/O LATE SHAMANNA REDDY, 6. SMT. L. PADMAVATHI AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, W/O S RAMACHANDRA REDDY, 7. KUMARI POOJITHA, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, D/O S. RAMACHANDRA REDDY, 8. KUMARI KEERTHANA, AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS, D/O S. RAMACHANDRA REDDY, Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40359 WP No. 10100 of 2024 APPLICANT NOS.1 TO 8 ARE R/AT HALANAYAKANAHALLI, SARJAPURA ROAD, CARMELARAM POST, BENGALURU-560035. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI SURESH S., ADVOCATE FOR SRI ASWATHAPPA D., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, KUMARAPARK WEST T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD, BENGALURU-560020. 2. THE TECHNICAL ASSISTANTS-4 OFFICE OF THE MEMBER, ENGINEERING SECTION, TOWN PLANNING, BDA, KUMARAPARK WEST, T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD, BENGALURU-560020. REP. BY TECHNICAL ASSISTANT ENGINEER. 3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (EAST) BDA COMMERCIAL COMPLEX, HSR LAYOUT, 6TH SECTOR, BENGALURU-560102. 4. M/S. AASHRAYAA HOMES A PARTNERSHIP FIRM, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.21, 1ST FLOOR, 15TH ‘A’ CROSS, HSR LAYOUT, SECTOR-6, BENGALURU-560102. ALSO AT: NO.4, 13TH CROSS, 9TH MAIN ROAD, SECTOR-6, HSR LAYOUT, BENGALURU-560102. REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNERS. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40359 WP No. 10100 of 2024 5. MR. M. PADMANABHA REDDY FATHER NAME NOT KNOWN, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS. 6. MR. RAJAGOPAL DESU. FATHER NAME NOT KNOWN, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS. THE RESPONDENT NOS.5 & 6 ARE RESIDING AT THE OFFICE ADDRESS NO.221, 1ST FLOOR, 15TH ‘A’ CROSS, HSR LAYOUT, SECTOR-6, BENGALURU-560102. ALSO AT: NO.4, 13TH CROSS, 9TH MAIN ROAD, SECTOR-6, HSR LAYOUT, BENGALURU-560102. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI AJAY KUMAR M., ADVOCATE FOR R-1 TO R-3; SRI CHENNAKESHAVA B.K., ADVOCATE FOR R-4 & R-5; V/O DATED 03/04/2024, NOTICE TO R-6 DISPENSED WITH) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 3 TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION / OBJECTIONS DATED 25/03/2024 OF THE PETITIONERS AS ANNEXURE-K IN PURSUANCE OF RENEWING / GRANTING LICENSE AND PLAN TO THE RESPONDENT NOS.4 TO 6 FOR SCHEDULE PROPERTY. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40359 WP No. 10100 of 2024 ORAL ORDER The petitioners in this writ petition is seeking for the following prayers: “WHEREFORE, it is prayed that this Hon’ble Court to issue a Writ or order/s or Direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the Respondents 1 to 3 to consider the representation/objections dated 25.03.2024 of the petitioners as Annexure-K, in pursuance of renewing/granting license and plan to the Respondent No.4 to 6 for schedule property.” 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that a Joint Development Agreement (JDA) was executed between the petitioners and respondent Nos.4 to 6 under a registered document dated 11.12.2014 followed by General Power of Attorney dated 15.12.2012, authorizing respondent Nos.4 to 6 to undertake construction and to obtain necessary sanction from the concerned authorities. It is submitted that respondent Nos.4 to 6 obtained the sanction plan belatedly, nearly 2½ years after the execution of the JDA. The - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40359 WP No. 10100 of 2024 processing fee paid to respondent No.1–authority for the approved plan was valid from 05.07.2018 to 04.07.2020. 4. The petitioners state that they have subsequently issued a legal notice to respondent Nos.4 to 6 terminating both JDA and the General Power of Attorney. Thereafter, they filed Com.A.A. No.212/2023 before the Commercial Court seeking an order restraining respondent Nos.4 to 6 from obtaining renewal of the plan or proceeding with construction activities. The said application was partly allowed and the respondents (developers) were restrained by way of an ad-interim injunction from alienating, encumbering, or creating any third-party rights in respect of the schedule property. 5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that in Comp A.A. No.212/2023 petitioners had sought multiple reliefs, including restraining respondent Nos.4 to 6 from seeking renewal of the plan. The Commercial Court did not grant that relief. The present - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40359 WP No. 10100 of 2024 writ petition, is thus an attempt to re-agitate the very issue that was rejected in the commercial proceedings. 6. This Court has carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. 7. The Commercial Court in Comp. A.A. No.212/2023, while allowing the application in part, passed the following order: “The application filed by the applicant under Section 9 of Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 is allowed in part with costs on the following terms: The Respondents, their agents, executors, assignees, representatives, or any other person deriving right under the Respondents are hereby restrained by way of an order of ad-interim temporary injunction from alienating/encumbering or creating third party interests in respect of schedule property till the expiry of Ninety days (90 days) or till such time the Arbitral Tribunal is constituted whichever is later.” 8. From the above, it is evident that the relief now sought in the present writ petition, namely, to direct BDA - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40359 WP No. 10100 of 2024 authorities not to consider any representations / objections for renewal of the plan / licence in favour of respondent Nos.4 to 6, is beyond the scope writ jurisdiction. Questions related to subsistence, validity or termination of the Joint Development Agreement and General Power of Attorney, are essentially contractual disputes that are required to be adjudicated by the appropriate civil Court and not in a writ proceedings under Article 226. In the light of the above discussion, this Court finds no merit in the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed as devoid of merit. Sd/- _____________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA MBM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 54