- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10683 WP No. 50365 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 50365 OF 2018 (LB-RES) BETWEEN: SARASWATHI VIDYA MANDIR TRUST (R), A TRUST REGISTERED UNDER INDIAN TRUST ACT, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT MARUTHI BADAVANE ANEKAL, REGISTRATION:NO.A1.PRA.SHA.NO.4/2003-2004 DATED 4-6-2013, NOW ITS REP. BY SRI SURESH N, SECRETARY OF THE TRUST, S/O NARASIMHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/AT DOOR NO.9, LAKSHMIVENKATESHWARA NILAYA, N R EXTENSION, NEWPET, ANEKAL TOWN AND TALUK, BENGALURU DISTRICT-562 106. …PETITIONER BY SRI LEELADHAR H P, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, URBAN DEVELOPMENT, DR. AMBEDKAR ROAD, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001. 2. THE CHIEF OFFICER, ANEKAL TOWN MUNICIPALITY, ANEKAL TOWN, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT-562 106. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. CHANDINI SINGH, HCGP FOR R-1 Digitally signed by SHWETHA RAGHAVENDRA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10683 WP No. 50365 of 2018 SRI LOKESH K.M, ADVOCATE FOR R-2) THS W.P IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDS FROM THE R-2 FROM ANNEXURE-A, A1, AND Z18 AND ALSO THE FILES PERTAINING TO PROPERTY NO.761/2583/52/781/2/603/70 FROM THE R-2 REGARDING THE REPRESENTATION AND OTHER SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER: QUASH THE FINAL NOTICE DATED 3.10.2017 ISSUED BY THE R-2 PU.KA.AA/RA.NI/CR/2017-18 DATED 3.10.2017 UNDER ANNEXURE- Z18 ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN B GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ ORAL ORDER 1. Petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs: "a) Issue writ of Certiorari or order or direction in the form of writ quash the Final notice dated 3.10.2017 issued by the 2nd respondent PU.KA.AA/RA.NI/CR/2017- 18 dated 3.10.2017 under Annexure-Z18. b) Issue a writ of mandamus or order or direction in the form of writ directing the 2nd respondent to consider the representation made by the petitioner from time to time dated 6.10.2017 and 29.8.2017 under Annexure-A&A1; c) Pass any other appropriate relief or reliefs as the Hon'ble Court deems fit under the facts and circumstances including the cost and the writ petition." 2. The petitioner had made an application for amalgamation of khata in respect of various sites in Sy.No.75/1, 75/2, 75/3 and 75/4 of Anekal Town. The respondent had - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10683 WP No. 50365 of 2018 called upon the petitioner to furnish certain documents as per Annexure-Z18. Challenging the same the petitioner is before this Court. 3. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that though a residential layout had been formed in terms of Annexure-C, subsequently the said lands have been put to use for construction of a school building and playground and in that background for the benefit of the school, amalgamation application had been filed. The same not having been considered, the further application which had been submitted for sanction of plan has not been considered. 4. It being admitted that there was a plan sanction for a residential layout which had been granted, there are sites which have been formed as regards which, khata has been issued. An amalgamation application having been filed would not entitle the petitioner to obtain a plan sanction for a school building in the said property inasmuch as the property is converted for residential purposes for a school building to be constructed, the same would have to be converted for commercial - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10683 WP No. 50365 of 2018 purposes or educational purposes if provided in that particular area. 5. That apart now that the land comes within the Urban Planning Authority, necessary change of land use is required to be obtained from the said planning authority. The residential layout plan which had been sanctioned is also required to be cancelled before any further action could be taken. None of these having been done, the question of the petitioner seeking for a building plan sanction as regards the building already constructed cannot be considered. There is no vested right created in favour of the petitioner without compliance of all the above. 6. Reserving liberty to the petitioner to comply with the above as also any other required under law and then approach the appropriate authority, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. SD/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE PRS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9