- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15133 WP No. 6436 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS WRIT PETITION NO. 6436 OF 2026 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: 1. MR. MOHAMMED SALMAN S/O MR. MOHAMMED APSAR, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS RESIDING NEAR JUMMA MASJID ALI SAB DODDI, TIMMASANDRA, CHIKKAMUDAVADI POST, KANAKPURA TALUK, BENGALURU SOUTH DISTRICT 562 117. 2. MRS. MUBEENA BEGAM W/O SYED ZIAULLA, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, WARD NO.13, RESIDING NEAR MASJID-E-ANSAR, KUMANDAN MOHALLA, RAMANAGAR, BENGALURU DISTRICT 562 159. 3. MRS. ARSHIYA BANO AMTUL MATEENA W/O. MOHAMMED SANAULLAH ALIAS MOHAMMED SAJID, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.7/2, 3RD FLOOR, BENSON CROSS ROAD, BENSON TOWN, BENGALURU NORTH, BENGALURU 560 046. Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15133 WP No. 6436 of 2026 4. MR. AFSARPASHA M.D. S/O. MOHAMMED HABEEB, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS RESIDING NEAR JAMMA MASJID ALI SAB DODDI, TIMMASANDRA, KANAKPURA TALUK, BENGALURU SOUTH 562 117. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI.THONTADHARYA R.K., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. AJIT P.B., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR OF SURVEY AND LAND RECORD RAMANAGAR TALUK, BENGALURU SOUTH DISTRICT, BENGALURU 562 159. 2. THE TAHSILDAR RAMANAGAR TALUK, BENGALURU SOUTH DISTRICT, BENGALURU 562 159. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.SHAMANTH NAIK, HCGP) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT / ORDER DTD. 04.02.2026 BEARING NUMBER BHUSANI/MOGINI/485/2025-26 (ANNX-A) ISSUED BY THE R-1 AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15133 WP No. 6436 of 2026 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS ORAL ORDER Learned High Court Government Pleader takes notice for both the respondents. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that respondent No.1 has rejected the petitioners application for the grant of 11E sketch pertaining to their properties as per Annexure-A dated 04.02.2026 on the ground that there are letter communications requesting grant of Rs.747 lakhs to acquire 33.2 acres of private land for the RGRHCL scheme. 3. Learned HCGP however submits that the application filed by the petitioners shall be reconsidered. 4. Having heard the learned counsel for petitioner, learned High Court Government Pleader and on perusing the petition papers, this Court finds that there is substance in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the reason for rejection cited in the impugned - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15133 WP No. 6436 of 2026 endorsement is not acceptable having regard to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of T. Vijayalakshmi & Ors vs Town Planning Member & Anr, reported in (2006) 8 SCC 502. 5. The application for issuance of 11E sketch will have to be considered and the same cannot be rejected on the ground that there is a proposal for future acquisition. In fact, the learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance on a decision of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sri. Tayappa versus the State of Karnataka and Ors., reported in 2015 SCC Online Karnataka 8192, wherein, it was held that even after preliminary notification is issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 or Section 11(4) of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 ('the New Act' for short), there is no prohibition disentitling the land owner to put his land for better use by seeking conversion after publication of the preliminary notification. That being - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15133 WP No. 6436 of 2026 the position, it would be futile on the part of the Deputy Commissioner to contend that there is proposal for future acquisition and therefore, the conversion application is rejected. Consequently, this Court proceeds to pass the following: ORDER a. The petition is allowed. b. The impugned endorsement dated 04.02.2026 at Annexure-'A' issued by respondent No.1 is hereby quashed. c. The concerned respondent is directed to reconsider the application of the petitioner for grant of 11E sketch within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order in accordance with law. Sd/- (R DEVDAS) JUDGE GPG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3