- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27238 WP No. 2046 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 2046 OF 2026 (LA-BDA) BETWEEN: RAJANNA G S/O SRI. GOPANNA, AGED 84 YEARS OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE, R/O. SHIVAKOTE VILLAGE, HESARAGHATTA HOBLI, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA-560089 REPRESENTED BY HIS GPA HOLDER MR. A.V. LAKSHMIPATHI AGE: 44 YEARS, S/O SRI. VENKATARAMAPPA, R/O FLAT NO. 402, BRUNDHAVAN GREENS, SITE NO. 436, 12TH MAIN, 4TH A CROSS, CANARA BANK LAYOUT, VIDHYARANYAPURA POST, BENGALURU-560097. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. PRATHITH H.S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT M.S. BUILDING, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU - 560001 2. THE COMMISSIONER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY T. CHOWDIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST, BENGALURU - 560020 Digitally signed by HEMALATHA J Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27238 WP No. 2046 of 2026 3. DEPUTY DIRECTOR TOWN PLANNING DEPARTMENT BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY T. CHOWDIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST BENGALURU - 560020 4. BENGALURU DISTRICT COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT, BENGALURU-560001 …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. CHANDINI S., HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 AND 4; SMT. VINITA J.D., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. H.DEVENDRAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.2 AND 3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT BEARING NO.BDA/NOTICE/MBC- 1344/947/2025-26 DATED 02.08.2025 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AS THE SAME IS ARBITRARY AND BAD IN THE EYES OF LAW AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ ORAL ORDER The petitioner has called in question a letter bearing No.¨ÉAC¥Áæ/£ÀAiÉÆøÀ/MBC/1344/947/2025-26 dated 02.08.2025 addressed by the respondent No.3 to the respondent No.4, by - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27238 WP No. 2046 of 2026 which the request of the petitioner for conversion of the land from agricultural to non-agricultural use was objected. 2. (i) The petitioner contends that he is the owner of land in Sy.No.156/2 of Shivakote Village, Hesaraghatta Hobli, Yelahanka Taluk, measuring 1 acre 20 guntas including Kharab. He proposed to convert the aforesaid land for residential purposes and with that intent, he entered into a joint development agreement. He also executed a General Power of Attorney (henceforth referred to as 'GPA') in favour of a developer. An application was presented by him before the respondent No.4 for conversion of land from agricultural to non-agricultural residential use. The respondent No.4 forwarded the request of petitioner for opinion of the respondent No.3. (ii) The respondent No.3 in terms of its letter dated 02.08.2025 addressed to the respondent No.4 stated that the land in question lay within agricultural zone and that it is proposed to be used for PRR-1 Layouts 01-05. Based on that, the request of the petitioner for conversion of the land was rejected by the respondent No.4 in terms of order dated - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27238 WP No. 2046 of 2026 23.07.2025. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the conversion of the land sought was from agricultural to non- agricultural residential use and the petitioner is entitled for such conversion. He also contends that mere proposal for utilization of the land for the proposed PRR-1 Layouts 01-05 would itself not be an impediment for the petitioner to seek conversion of the land. He submits that as long as the land in question is not acquired by the State Government for the purposes of the Bangalore Development Authority, the petitioner is entitled for conversion of his land for non- agricultural residential use. In this regard, he sought support from the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of T. Vijayalakshmi and Others Vs. Town Planning Member and Another - (2006) 8 SCC 502, as well as the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.200165/2023. He therefore prays that the impugned endorsement issued by the respondent No.4 as well as the opinion furnished by the respondent No.2 to the respondent No.4 be set at nought. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27238 WP No. 2046 of 2026 4. The petition is opposed by the respondent Nos.2 and 3, wherein it is contended that the land in question is included in the area statement for the land required to proposed PRR-1 Layouts 01-05 and that the opinion addressed to the respondent No.4 was pursuant to the UO Note (Modified) dated 20.05.2025 issued by the Special Land Acquisition Officer - 03, wherein it was informed not to accord any approvals for conversion etc. in respect of those villages mentioned in the list, which were proposed for the PRR-1 Layouts 01-05. It is also contended that as per the Regulations-Revised Master Plan 2015 (henceforth referred to as 'RMP-2015'), the land in question is designated for agriculture purposes and it is abutting a gramtana. It is also stated that as per BDA Zoning Regulation 4.13.2(iii), within a radius of 250 meters from the gramtana, developments required for the natural growth of the village may be permitted. Thus, it is contended that the petitioner is not entitled for getting the land converted for residential use. 5. (i) The petitioner has not disputed the fact that the land in question lies within the agricultural zone in the RMP- - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27238 WP No. 2046 of 2026 2015. The respondent No.2 admitted that the land of the petitioner lies within 250 meters from the gramatana and therefore, the petitioner is entitled to convert the land for non- residential purpose even if the said land is included within the agricultural zone in the RMP-2015. The claim of respondent No.2 that the land in question is required for PRR-1 Layouts 01- 05 and that the same is included in the area statement prepared by the Special Land Acquisition Officer is of no consequence and that cannot come in the way of the petitioner putting the land in question to a better use. As long as the land in question is not acquired by the respondent No.1 for the purposes of the respondent Nos.2 and 3, they cannot object or oppose or give any adverse opinion against conversion of land from agricultural to non-agricultural residential use. In this regard, it is apposite to refer to the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in T. Vijayalakshmi (referred supra), where it was held as follows: "13. Town Planning legislations are regulatory in nature. The right to property of a person would include a right to construct a building. Such a right, however, can be restricted by reason of a legislation. In terms of the provisions of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27238 WP No. 2046 of 2026 Act, a comprehensive development plan was prepared. It indisputably is still in force. Whether the amendments to the said comprehensive development plan as proposed by the Authority would ultimately be accepted by the State or a not is uncertain. It is yet to apply its mind. Amendments to a development plan must conform to the provisions of the Act. As noticed hereinbefore, the State has called for objection from the citizens. Ecological balance no doubt is required to be maintained and the courts while interpreting a statute should bestow serious consideration in this behalf, but ecological aspects, it is trite, are ordinarily a part of the town planning legislation. If in the legislation itself or in the statute governing the field, ecological aspects have not been taken into consideration keeping in view the future need, the State and the Authority must take the blame therefor. We must assume that these aspects of the matter were taken into consideration by the Authority and the State. But the rights of the parties cannot be intermeddled with so long as an appropriate amendment in the legislation is not brought into force. 15. The law in this behalf is explicit. Right of a person to construct residential houses in the residential area is a valuable right. The said right can only be regulated in terms of a regulatory statute but unless there exists a clear provision the same cannot be taken away. It is also a trite law that the building plans are required to be dealt with in terms of the existing law. Determination of such a question cannot be postponed far less taken - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27238 WP No. 2046 of 2026 away. Doctrine of legitimate expectation in a case of this nature would have a role to play. 18. It is, thus, now well-settled law that an application for grant of permission for construction of a building is required to be decided in accordance with law applicable on the day on which such permission is granted. However, a statutory authority must exercise its jurisdiction within a reasonable time." (ii) Likewise, the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.200165/2023, held as follows: "13. In the light of the above, we find that the application filed by the contesting respondents/writ petitioners seeking approval of layout plan at the hands of Vijayapura Urban Development Authority was required to be considered by the authority in accordance with the provisions of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act. An endorsement could not have been issued by the authority declining to sanction the plan on the ground that scheme was proposed by the authority way back in the year 2010 for development. A right would arise to the authority to decline such application only if a notification is duly published preliminarily for acquisition of the lands for formation of a scheme or a layout. The Urban - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27238 WP No. 2046 of 2026 Development Authority would get a right to decline such an application only if an acquisition notification is published in accordance with law. 14. It is also noticeable that Rule 3 of the Rules, 2009, which provides for allotment of sites in lieu of compensation, also provides that if the authority enters into an agreement with the land owner by mutual consent and if the owner of the land agrees for sale or consents for acquisition of his land free from all encumbrances, etc., the authority is permitted to allot sites in lieu of compensation. Therefore, if there is no such agreement entered into between the authority and the land owners, the authority or the State Government cannot insist that the land owner should not develop his land. Such a stand would be contrary to the rights flowing from Article 300A of the Constitution of India. It is by now well settled that though right to property is not a fundamental right, nevertheless, it continues to be a constitutional right arising out of Article 300A of the Constitution." (iii) Therefore, the opinion furnished by respondent No.3 to the respondent No.4 was thoroughly faulty and - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27238 WP No. 2046 of 2026 deserves to be interfered with. Consequently, the following order is passed: ORDER i. The petition is allowed; ii. The impugned endorsement issued by the respondent No.4 rejecting the application of the petitioner for conversion of land from agricultural to non-agricultural residential use is quashed. Likewise, the opinion furnished by the respondent No.3 to respondent No.4, bearing No.¨ÉAC¥Áæ/£ÀAiÉÆøÀ/MBC/1344/947/2025-26 dated 02.08.2025, is also quashed. iii. The respondent No.4 is directed to consider the application of the petitioner within the timeline prescribed under Section 95 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, failing which, the petitioner shall be entitled to deemed conversion of land and the respondent No.4 shall receive the conversion charges and issue - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27238 WP No. 2046 of 2026 appropriate official memorandums acknowledging that the land in question is converted for non-agricultural residential use. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE BKN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 49