Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2026 DAILYLAW 14059 (KAR)

SMT MANJULA @ MANJAMMA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA

WP/3519/2026 · 2026-02-17

Suraj Govindaraj

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9836 WP No. 3519 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 3519 OF 2026 (LB-RES) BETWEEN: SMT. MANJULA @ MANJAMMA W/O MUNIKRISHNAPPA D/O LATE NARAYANSWAMY AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/AT GUDLA MUDDENAHALLI VILLAGE, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 562 135. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. CHOKKAREDDY, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPTS BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT M.S.BUILDING, AMBEDKAR BEEDHI BANGALORE - 560 001. 2. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF TOWN PLANNING - BDA T.CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST BENGALURU - 20. 3. COMMISSIONER - BDA T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD KUMARA PARK WEST, BENGALURU -20. 4. THE MEMBER SECRETARY Digitally signed by SHWETHA RAGHAVENDRA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9836 WP No. 3519 of 2026 TOWN PLANNING AUTHORITY - BDA T.CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST BENGALURU -20. 5. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER NORTH DIVISION (RT NAGARA, COMMERCIAL COMPLEX) - BDA BENGALURU - 32. 6. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER - (ELECTRICITY) BENGALURU EAST TALUK K.R.PURAM, BENGALURU - 38. 7. PDO BIDARAHALLI GRAMA PANCHAYATH BIDARAHALLI, BENGALURU EAST TALUK BENGALURU - 49. 8. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PANCHAYATH RAJ ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT BENGALURU EAST TALUK K.R.PURAM, BENGALURU - 38 9. KARNATAKA REAL ESTATE REGULATING AUTHORITY RETD BY ITS SECRETARY OFFICE AT FLAT NO.4, 3RD FLOOR, PRINCETON PARK VIEW SHANTHINIKETHNA LAYOUT, ARIKERE, BENGALURU - 49 10. SRI. A.M. RAJASHEKAR S/O V.MUNEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS R/AT ADHUR VILLAGE BIDARAHALLI HOBLI VIRGO NAGARA POST, BANGALORE - 49. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SPOORTHI V, HCGP FOR R1) - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9836 WP No. 3519 of 2026 THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A. ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI BY QUASHING ANNEXURE-A AND A-1, ORDER DATED. 30-05-2025 VIDE NO.BEM.APARA.NAYOSA/PRL-337/1139/2025-26, PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 AND 3 BY APPROVED ON 05-04- 2025 IN RESOLUTION NO.2.3.4/2025 FOR TEMPORARY RESIDENTIAL LAYOUT PLAN UNDER SECTION 17(2-A) OF KARNATAKA TOWN AND RURAL PLANNING AUTHORITY ACT 1961 IN FAVOUR OF RESPONDENT NO.10, IN RESPECT OF SY.NO.77/2, MEASURING 2 ACRES 4.8 GUNTAS OF LAND SITUATED AT ADHUR VILLAGE, BIDARAHALLI HOBLI, BANGALORE EAST TALUK BY ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, 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 by quashing Annexure-A & A-1, order dated: 30-05-2025 vide No.bem.apara.nayosa/PRL-337/1139/2025-26, passed by the Respondent No.2 & 3 by approved on 05-04-2025 in resolution No.2.3.4/2025 for temporary residential layout plan under section 17(2- A) of Karnataka Town and Rural planning Authority Act 1961 in favour of Respondent No.10, in respect of Sy.No.77/2, measuring 2 acres 4.8 guntas of land situated at Adhur Village, Bidarahalli hobli, Bangalore East Taluk by allowing the Writ petition. b. grant such other reliefs deems fit under facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that respondent No.10 has obtained a plan sanction by suppressing the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9836 WP No. 3519 of 2026 proceedings in R.A.No.188/2024. In that regard, he relies on the documents produced along with the memo dated 17.02.2026. 3. A perusal of the said document indicates that the order is an ex-parte order. Though respondent No.10 is a party, was not served as on that date of the order. Hence, the question of suppression would not arise. 4. Hence, reserving liberty to the petitioner to move such application in the pending proceedings, the petition stands disposed of. 5. In view of the disposal of the main petition, pending interlocutory application does not survive for consideration. SD/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE GJM List No.: 2 Sl No.: 10