Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2026 DAILYLAW 25642 (KAR)

SRI D V ANJINAPPA v. THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY

WP/14296/2026 · 2026-06-22

R Nataraj

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31138 WP No. 14296 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 14296 OF 2026 (BDA) BETWEEN: SRI. D.V. ANJINAPPA S/O. ERABACHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, R/O. DIBBURU VILLAGE, HESARAGHATTA HOBLI, YELAHANKA TALUK, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT-560089. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAMESH K.R., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001. 2. BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, KUMARA PARK WEST, T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD, BENGALURU-560 020 REPTD. BY ITS COMMISSIONER, 3. THE TOWN PLANNING MEMBER, BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD, BENGALURU-560 020. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ADITYA DIWAKAR, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1; SRI. B.S.SACHIN, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.2 AND 3) Digitally signed by HEMALATHA J Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31138 WP No. 14296 of 2026 THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IF NECESSARY AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 3 TO PASS APPROPRIATE ORDERS CONSIDERING THE APPLICATION GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER DATED 23.02.2026 AT ANNEXURE-D SEEKING CHANGE OF LAND USE OF HIS AGRICULTURAL LAND BEARING SY.NO.83/2A TO AN EXTENT OF 1 ACRE 2 GUNTAS OF ITTAGALPURA VILLAGE, HESARAGHATTA HOBLI, YELAHANKA TALUK, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT WITHIN A TIME FRAME. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ ORAL ORDER The petitioner has sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct respondent Nos.1 to 3 to consider his application dated 23.02.2026 for change of land use of Sy.No.83/2A of Ittagalpura, Hesaraghatta Hobli, Yelahanka Taluk, Bengaluru Urban district. 2. The petitioner claims that he is the owner of the aforesaid land. He contends that all the lands lying adjacent to his land are developed and are converted for non-agricultural purposes. The petitioner intended to get his land converted for residential use. He therefore, filed an application before - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31138 WP No. 14296 of 2026 respondent No.3 on 23.02.2026 seeking change of land use. He claims that he made several visits to the respondents requesting them to pass appropriate orders. However, the respondents have not taken any action. He is therefore before this Court seeking a direction to respondent Nos.1 to 3 to consider his application dated 23.02.2026. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is entitled to use the land for non-agricultural purposes and that he has lawfully submitted an application before the respondents. He therefore contends that the respondents are bound to consider the said application in accordance with law at the earliest. 4. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 submitted that if the request of the petitioner is in accordance with law, the same would be considered in accordance with law and appropriate communication would be issued in that regard. 5. The learned Additional Government Advocate also submitted that the State Government would take necessary steps soon after receipt of a report from the respondent no. 2. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31138 WP No. 14296 of 2026 6. In view of the above submissions, this writ petition is disposed off directing respondents Nos.2 and 3 to consider the application of the petitioner and place the same before the respondent No.1 alongwith their report within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and respondent No.1 shall act on the report of respondent Nos.2 and 3 within a period of one month thereafter and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. 7. It is made clear that if the above direction is not complied with, the officer responsible for the delay shall indemnify the petitioner for any loss caused on account of such delay and shall be personally responsible for the consequences thereof. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE HJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 93