Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2026 DAILYLAW 31424 (KAR)

MAYFAIR ESTATES PVT LTD v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

WP/2162/2025 · 2026-07-15

M I Arun

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010050702025 NC: 2026:KHC:36384 WP No. 2162 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT PETITION NO.2162 OF 2025 (LB-RES) BETWEEN: 1. MAYFAIR ESTATES PVT LTD, COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER COMPANIES ACT, 1956 HAVING THE REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.9-1-364/B/103, 1st FLOOR, ABOVE SHIV TRADERS, NEXT TO STATE BANK OF INDIA, LANGER HOUSE, BAPU GHAT, HYDERABAD-500 008. REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, SRI. ABHINAV AGARWAL. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. PRABHULING K. NAVADGI, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. SANJAY G., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, HINDU RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS DEPARTMENT, 2ND AND 3RD FLOOR, SRI MALAIMAHADESHWARA VARTHABHAVANA ALUR VENKATARAO ROAD, CHAMARAJAPETE, Digitally signed by GEETHA P G Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010050702025 NC: 2026:KHC:36384 WP No. 2162 of 2025 BANGALORE-560 018 REP BY ITS COMMISSIONER. 2. SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE DISTRICT, BANGALORE-560 009. 3. THE MEMBER SECRETARY, MAGADI PLANNING AUTHORITY, NO.297/5588, BATEGOWDA LAYOUT, TIRUMALAI ROAD, MAGADI TOWN, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT, MAGADI-562 120. 4. EXECUTIVE OFFICER, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK, PANCHAYATH NO.515, KANAKAPURA ROAD, CHANDRA LAYOUT, UMARBAGH LAYOUT, BANASHANKARI TEMPLE WARD, BENGALURU-560 078. 5. THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR, NO.12, 1ST FLOOR, 1ST MAIN ROAD, JAYANAGAR 4TH BLOCK EAST, BANGALORE-560 011. 6. THE PANCHAYAT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, CHANNENAHALLI GRAM PANCHAYAT, THAVARAKERE HOBLI, MAGADI MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK-562 102. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. PRATHIMA HONNAPURA, AAG FOR R1, R2 AND R5; SRI. YOGESH D. NAIK, ADVOCATE FOR R3; SRI. M. PRADEEP, ADVOCATE FOR R4 AND R6.) - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010050702025 NC: 2026:KHC:36384 WP No. 2162 of 2025 THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3 BEARING NO.MPA/ALAO/04/2013-14/706 DATED 17.01.2025 (ANNEXURE-E) AND ETC. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN ORAL ORDER 1. Petitioner claiming to be the owner of 12 acres and 29 guntas of land situated in Survey Nos.28, 29/11, 29/13, 29/20 and 29/22 of Doddamaranahalli Village, Tavarekere Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk, got the same converted for residential purposes, formed a layout and made an application to respondent No.3-Planning Authority to release the sites for sale. Respondent No.3 in turn has released 40% of the sites formed therein. However, when an application was made to release the remaining 60% of the sites, the impugned endorsement bearing No.MPA/ALAO/04/2013-14/706 dated 17.01.2025 (vide Annexure-E to the writ petition) has been issued by respondent No.3 and they have refused to release - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010050702025 NC: 2026:KHC:36384 WP No. 2162 of 2025 the sites. The said refusal is based upon the communication issued by respondent no.1 to respondent no. 3 wherein he has stated that the lands concerned including several other lands belonged to Muzrai Department of the State and they have been illegally occupied by the third parties based on encroachment/sale/grant and necessary proceedings have been initiated to recover the same from private persons. 2. The case of the petitioner is that presently the revenue records from the year 1969 in respect of the lands concerned stands in the name of private persons and the petitioner herein purchased the lands from the year 2009 onwards by virtue of various sale deeds and it is in possession of the lands. It is further submitted that there was no objection from the authorities concerned when the petitioner applied for conversion of the said lands from agricultural to non- agricultural purposes and when respondent No.3 permitted release of 40% of the sites formed for sale. Under the circumstances, it is submitted that both the communication dated 08.12.2020 vide Annexure-D to the writ petition which is issued by respondent No.1 to respondent No.3 and the - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010050702025 NC: 2026:KHC:36384 WP No. 2162 of 2025 endorsement dated 17.01.2025 issued by respondent No.3 vide Annexure-E to the writ petition be set aside. 3. Per contra, learned AAG appearing for the State submits that the lands concerned indeed belonged to the Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Department/Muzrai Department of the State and presently there is an enquiry initiated as to how the lands came to be occupied by private persons and steps are being taken to have the same repossessed by the State. Under the said circumstances, it is submitted that permitting the petitioner to alienate the sites in favour of third parties will only result in multiplicity of proceedings and for that reason, it is prayed that the writ petition be dismissed and the petitioner be advised to wait until the proceedings initiated by the State in respect of the lands concerned before the revenue authorities as well as before the Land Grabbing Prohibition Court are concluded, and thereafter, a decision can be taken on the request of the petitioner. 4. It is also contended that apart from the contention urged by the learned AAG, the petitioner has not satisfied the other - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010050702025 NC: 2026:KHC:36384 WP No. 2162 of 2025 requirements as required in law for release of the remaining 60% of the sites in their favour. For the said reason, it is prayed that the writ petition be dismissed. 5. It is further urged by the learned AAG that the revenue documents pertaining to the lands concerned are standing in the name of private persons (predecessor-in-title of the petitioner) from the year 1982 and not earlier to it as contended by the petitioner. She further submits that the revenue documents prior to 1982 are not available with the authorities concerned. 6. The question that arises for consideration is whether it is proper on the part of respondent No.3 to refuse to grant permission to the petitioner to alienate the remaining 60% of the sites on the ground that respondent No.1 has issued the communication to respondent No.3 stating that the lands are Government lands and that the proceedings have been initiated in respect of the lands concerned before the revenue authorities under the provisions of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 as well as the Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibition - 7 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010050702025 NC: 2026:KHC:36384 WP No. 2162 of 2025 Act, when no order has been passed against the petitioner by those authorities in the said proceedings. 7. Admittedly, the revenue documents indicate that the predecessor-in-title of the petitioner was the owner of the lands concerned at least from the year 1982 onwards. Thereafter, the petitioner through various sale deeds from the year 2009 onwards has purchased the lands. Subsequently, it has applied for change of land use and also conversion of the lands from agricultural to non-agricultural purposes, which has been permitted by the authorities concerned without raising any concern about the ownership of the lands. Thereafter, the petitioner has formed a layout on the said lands and 40% of the sites have already been released by respondent No.3 for sale. The petitioner was entitled for release of the remaining 60% of the sites subsequent to fulfilling certain other conditions mentioned by respondent No.3 at the time of plan sanction. The case of the petitioner is that such requirements have been fulfilled by the petitioner, and hence, he has made the necessary application. No doubt, respondent no.3 is entitled to refuse permission for release of the remaining 60% of the sites, - 8 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010050702025 NC: 2026:KHC:36384 WP No. 2162 of 2025 if all the conditions imposed on the petitioner are not fulfilled. However, in my opinion, when the title deeds and the revenue documents as on today indicate that the petitioner is the owner of the lands concerned, respondent No.3 upon the petitioner fulfilling other terms and conditions of the plan sanction, is obliged to release the remaining 60% of the sites in the layout for sale. Of course, the same shall be subject to result of the proceedings said to have been initiated by the State in respect of ownership of the lands concerned. 8. When it comes to ownership of the property, a mere opinion of an Officer of the State, irrespective of how high ranking the said Officer may be, cannot prevent an individual from enjoying his property as he likes. If such an Officer is of the opinion that the property belongs to the State and the same is presently in the possession of an individual due to an error committed in the past, then, in that event, the State can initiate appropriate proceedings in accordance with law to resume the possession of the property concerned. However, this alone cannot constitute a ground for prohibiting an - 9 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010050702025 NC: 2026:KHC:36384 WP No. 2162 of 2025 individual from enjoying his property till appropriate orders are passed. 9. In the present case, the concerned authorities under Section 136 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 and the Special Courts under the Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibition Act are entitled to hear the matter and take appropriate decision in accordance with law. However, when no order has been passed in either of the forums to which the State contends that they have approached, the communication (vide Annexure-E to the writ petition) could not have been issued by respondent no.3 refusing permission to release the remaining 60% of the sites in favour of the petitioner and the same is liable to be set aside. 10. The prayer insofar as it relates to quashing of the communication vide Annexure-D to the writ petition, it is only a communication issued by respondent No.1 to respondent No.3 and it does not have the effect of taking away the right of the petitioner over the lands concerned and it does not call for any interference. - 10 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010050702025 NC: 2026:KHC:36384 WP No. 2162 of 2025 11. Hence, the following: ORDER (i) The impugned endorsement bearing No.MPA/ALAO/04/2013-14/706 dated 17.01.2025 (vide Annexure-E to the writ petition) issued by respondent No.3 is hereby set aside; (ii) Respondent No.3 is directed to consider the case of the petitioner and pass necessary orders by releasing the remaining 60% of the sites for sale, provided the petitioner fulfills the other terms and conditions prescribed in the approval granted to the petitioner without relying upon the communication vide Annexure-D to the writ petition; (iii) It is needless to state that liberty is reserved to the State to proceed under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 or the Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibition Act in accordance with law and the petitioner or such other person concerned will have the right to resist the same in the manner known to law. Sd/- (M.I.ARUN) JUDGE hkh.