- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26870 WP No. 30965 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 30965 OF 2025 (LB-RES) BETWEEN: MR. V GURU SWAGATH SON OF G VEERABHADRASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 287, BEHIND AM PALYA, GOVT SCHOOL, TUDA LAYOUT, SIRA GATE TUMKUR 572 106. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. ROHAN HOSMATH., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, REP BY ITS UNDER SECRETARY VIDHANA SOUDHA, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU 560 001. 2. JOINT DIRECTOR ANEKAL TOWN PLANNING Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26870 WP No. 30965 of 2025 AUTHORITY, NO. 430, HENNAGARA GATE, NEAR CHANDAPURA, BENGALURU 560 099. 3. M/S NIRMAN SHELTERS (B) PVT LTD (INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT 1956) OFFICE NO. 45A NN, NISARGA LAYOUT, NEAR KOPPA GATE BASERGHATTA ROAD, ANEKAL BANGALORE -560 083 REP BY MANAGING DIRECTOR SRI. V. LAKSHMINARAYAN. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.KENCHEGOWDA., AGA FOR R1; SRI. GIRISH H R., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. KIRAN KUMAR T L., ADVOCATE FOR R2; SRI. D.S. JAYARAJ., ADVOCATE FOR R3) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT BEARING NO. AAYOPRA/CC/437/2025-26 DATED 26.09.2025 ISSUED BY R-2 PRODUCED AS ANNX-E; DIRECT R-2 TO FORTHWITH ISSUE APPROVAL FOR BUILDING IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26870 WP No. 30965 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD ORAL ORDER The short question for consideration is: whether the second respondent, an officer from the Planning Authority, could have rejected the petitioner's application for grant of sanction of a building plan and building licence on the ground that the developer [the third respondent] has violated the terms of approval of a Layout Development. The undisputed facts are that the third respondent has been issued with a layout development plan for area spread over 80 acres and 39 guntas in different survey numbers of Harappanahalli and Bukkasagara villages in Anekal and that in terms of this approval, the second respondent has released 60% of 1096 sites to be sold subject to development. 2. The second respondent has stipulated the terms upon which the third respondent has to develop the layout, and these terms include, amongst - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26870 WP No. 30965 of 2025 others, that the developer must ensure demarcation of Civic Amenity Area, Public Utility Area, Parks, and relinquish these Areas in its favour. The third respondent has defaulted on this, and it is also alleged that the third respondent has carved out sites in Areas earmarked for Civic amenities and transferred the same and that the third respondent has transferred 40% of the sites though they have not been released. 3. These allegations and the pending proceedings against the third respondent constitute the reason to reject the petitioner's application for grant of sanction for building plan and for issuance of building licence. There is no dispute that the petitioner has purchased the site in No.1767 measuring 40feet x 60feet, that this site is part of the 60% of the sites released for sale even pending development and that there could be no embargo in the sale of this property to the petitioner. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26870 WP No. 30965 of 2025 4. Sri. Rohan Hosmath, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Girish H R, the learned counsel for the second respondent, and Sri D.S. Jayaraj, the learned counsel for the third respondent, are heard for disposal of the petition. This Court must opine that the third respondent must be answerable for every deviation alleged, and even those who have purchased sites from the 40% of the sites yet to be released may have to answer as could be those who could have purchased sites carved out in the Civic Amenity Area/ Park Area/ Public Utility Area, but this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner who has purchased a site which is released to be sold even before development cannot be denied the benefit of the building plan or the building license. 5. The petitioner's request for such plan and license must definitely be considered independent of - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26870 WP No. 30965 of 2025 the deviations or the breach by the third respondent. Therefore, the second respondent's impugned Endorsement dated 26.09.2025 cannot be sustained and it must be quashed. At this stage, Sri Girish H R, submits that the petitioner is not entitled for sanction of the plan as submitted because it proposes a building in deviation of the Regulations and that the petitioner has also been informed about the same. This Court must observe that the petitioner must be at liberty to resubmit plans which conform to the applicable Regulations and the second respondent must be called upon to consider and issue necessary approval and sanction subject to all compliances without reference to the breach by the third respondent/developer. Hence the following ORDER The petition is allowed. The second respondent's Communication dated 26.09.2025 [Annexure-E] is quashed with liberty to the petitioner to resubmit his plans for approval - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26870 WP No. 30965 of 2025 with the second respondent who is called upon to consider the same in the light of this Court's observation and communicate the decision or the compliances as may be further required, within four [4] weeks from the date of submission of the fresh set of plans by the petitioner. The petitioner can only undertake construction subject to its risk and consequence. Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE NV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 33