- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010434202026 NC: 2026:KHC:43024-DB RP No. 349 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA REVIEW PETITION NO. 349 OF 2026 IN WRIT APPEAL NO. 73 OF 2025 (LB-BMP) C/W CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION No.1332 OF 2024 BETWEEN: 1. M/S. SANGAM ENTERPRISES NO.15, DHANAVANTHRI ROAD MAJESTIC, BENGALURU - 560 009 REP. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER R. CHANDRU …PETITIONER (BY SRI K. VIJAYA KUMAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE REP. BY ITS CHIEF COMMISSIONER N.R. SQUARE BENGALURU - 560 002 2. THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF TOWN PLANNING BBMP, N.R. SQUARE BENGALURU - 560 002 Digitally signed by VEERENDRA KUMAR K M Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010434202026 NC: 2026:KHC:43024-DB RP No. 349 of 2026 3. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT VIKAS SOUDHA BENGALURU - 560 001 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI MONESH KUMAR K.B., ADVOCATE FOR R-1 & R-2; SMT. NILOUFER AKBAR, AGA FOR R-3) THIS REVIEW PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 114 READ WITH ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF CPC 1908, READ WITH ARTICLE 215 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO REVIEW THE ORDER DATED 15.10.2025 PASSED IN W.A.NO.73/2025 (LB-BMP) (COMMON ORDER PASSED IN W.A.NO.73/2025 C/W CCC NO.1332/2024) BY CONSIDERING RULE NO.9 OF THE KARNATAKA TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (BENEFIT OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS) RULES, 2016 AND PASS APPROPRIATE ORDERS IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY, BY ALLOWING THIS REVIEW PETITION. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010434202026 NC: 2026:KHC:43024-DB RP No. 349 of 2026 ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE) 1. The review petitioner (writ petitioner in W.P.No.80/2023[LB- BMP]; respondent No.1 in WA No.73/2025 [LB-BMP] and the complainant in CCC No.1332/2024) [the petitioner] has filed the present review petition seeking review of the common judgment dated 15.10.2025 passed by this Court in WA No.73/2025 (LB- BMP) connected with CCC No.1332/2024. The said writ appeal was filed by Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike [BBMP], impugning an order dated 29.05.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in WP No.80/2023 (LB-BMP) captioned 'M/s Sangam Enterprises v. The State of Karnataka and others'. 2. The petitioner had filed the said writ petition, inter alia, praying as under: "(i) To issue a writ of mandamus or order or a direction directing the respondents 2 and 3 to consider approval of the modified plan submitted on 28.03.2014 (vide Annexure-J) in terms of the rules that existed on the date of submission of the application, within the time frame specified by this Hon'ble court; (ii) To direct the respondents to consider the representations dated 4.7.2018, 23.1.2019, 22.2.2021 and 24.11.2021 and 19.10.2022, submitted by the petitioner - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010434202026 NC: 2026:KHC:43024-DB RP No. 349 of 2026 (vide Annexure-N series and Annexure-P) to the 2nd and 3rd respondent, and issue modified plan in terms of the existing provisions as on the date the modified plan was submitted; (iii) Pass such other order as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case." 3. The petitioner's principal grievance was that its application for approval of the Modified Plan was not considered in terms of the rules and policies that were in force when the said application was made; and BBMP proceeded on the premise that the application was required to be considered in terms of the rules in force on the date on which sanction was to be accorded. 4. The Karnataka Town and Country Planning (Benefit of Development Rights) Rules, 2016 [the Rules], framed under the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961 [KTCP Act], were notified on 04.03.2017. 5. The petitioner had submitted the application for approval of the Modified Plan on 28.03.2014. One of the material changes brought about by the Rules notified on 04.03.2017 concerned the relaxation of setbacks. Under sub-rule (8) of Rule 4 of the Rules, the relaxation of setback could not exceed 25% of the prescribed setback, proportionate to the quantum of the development rights - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010434202026 NC: 2026:KHC:43024-DB RP No. 349 of 2026 utilised. The petitioner had sought a relaxation of 50% of the setback in terms of paragraph 10 of Chapter X of the Revised Master Plan, 2015 and the Circular dated 23.11.2009 issued by BBMP, that is, in accordance with the policy in effect prior to the notification of the Rules. 6. The learned Single Judge accepted the petitioner's stand and by the order dated 29.05.2024 allowed the writ petition and directed BBMP to sanction the Modified Plan, permitting the petitioner to utilise the Transferable Development Rights [TDR] in terms of the Development Rights Certificate dated 18.04.2015, subject to compliance with the other statutory requirements. 7. The learned Single Judge held that the petitioner had a vested right to secure approval of the Modified Plan as per the rules and policies in force on the date of filing of the application for a Modified Plan, notwithstanding that the Rules framed subsequently were at variance with those policies. Thus, the Rules, which restricted the extent of relaxation in setbacks that could be allowed, would not apply. 8. This Court did not concur with the said view and, accordingly, allowed the writ appeal, following the decisions of the Supreme - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010434202026 NC: 2026:KHC:43024-DB RP No. 349 of 2026 Court in Howrah Municipal Corporation and others v. Ganges Rope Co. Ltd., and Others1; Usman Gani J. Khatri v. Cantonment Board2; and New Delhi Municipal Council and others v. M/s. Tanvi Trading and Credit Private Limited and others3. Para 32 of the said judgment which is sought to be reviewed is reproduced below: "32. Coming to the facts of the present case, the writ petitioner filed an application for seeking NOC for the Modified Plan from the Karnataka Fire Service Department on 22.02.2017. However, as on that date, Section 14B of the KTCP Act had been amended and the Rules had been notified. In terms of the Rules, the set back relaxation is confined to 25%. Admittedly, the Modified Plan is not in conformity with the said norms. Accordingly, no directions could be issued for sanction of the Modified Plan. Thus, the impugned order directing the appellants to sanction the Modified Plan, permitting the petitioner to utilize the TDR certificate dated 18.04.2015, cannot be sustained." 9. The petitioner had preferred a Special Leave Petition, being SLP (Civil) Diary No.64174/2025, against the said judgment dated 15.10.2025. The same was disposed of by an order dated 12.02.2026, whereby the Supreme Court declined to interfere with the judgment of this Court. The Supreme Court, however, granted 1 (2004) 1 SCC 663 2 (1992) 3 SCC 455 3 (2008) 8 SCC 765 - 7 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010434202026 NC: 2026:KHC:43024-DB RP No. 349 of 2026 liberty to the petitioner to file a review petition, insofar as the application of Rule 9 of the Rules is concerned. In view of the liberty so granted by the Supreme Court, the petitioner has preferred the present review petition. 10. Rule 9 of the Rules reads as under: "9. Development Rights Certificate issued prior to the commencement of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning (Amendment) Act 2015.- The following actions shall be taken for the Development Right Certificate issued prior to the commencement of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning (Amendment) Act, 2015, namely:- (a) The Planning Authority shall collect all the details of Development Right Certificates issued, transferred and utilized within its jurisdiction, from the Local Authorities which have issued, transferred and utilized Development Right Certificates and after verifying the veracity of those certificates enter in separate register in Form XI maintained for this purpose. (b) The development right certificates issued prior to the KTCP(Amendment) Act, 2015 shall be utilized under the existing rules as per the calculation illustrated as below; Market Value of originating plot at the time of approval of the plan for utilization of Transferrable Development Rights DRC utilization @ receiving plot = Extent of existing TDR(in FAR) X Market value of receiving plot at the time of approval of the plan for utilization of Transferrable Development Rights X FAR of receiving plot - 8 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010434202026 NC: 2026:KHC:43024-DB RP No. 349 of 2026 11. As is apparent from the above, the said Rule pertains to Development Rights Certificates [DRC] issued before the commencement of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning (Amendment) Act, 2015 [the Amendment Act]. The Rule prescribes the manner of computing the extent of TDR that may be loaded on the receiving plot pursuant to a DRC issued prior to the commencement of the Amendment Act. 12. It is not in dispute that the DRC relied upon by the petitioner is dated 18.04.2015, that is, prior to the commencement of the Amendment Act, and that the petitioner is entitled to utilise the said DRC to the extent specified in Rule 9. However, such utilisation is necessarily subject to the construction being raised in accordance with the applicable building bye-laws and Regulations. 13. Rule 9 of the Rules cannot be read as altering sub-rule (8) of Rule 4 of the Rules, which caps the maximum relaxation available in respect of setbacks. Thus, the Floor Area Ratio [FAR] as computed under clause (b) of Rule 9 would be available for use, but subject to the other applicable building bye-laws and regulations, including those relating to height restrictions, setbacks, etc. - 9 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010434202026 NC: 2026:KHC:43024-DB RP No. 349 of 2026 14. The petitioner's contention that the ceiling of 25% on relaxation of setbacks prescribed under the Rules is required to be overridden by Rule 9 is unpersuasive. The scope of Rule 9 is confined to providing the computation of the maximum FAR that would be available on account of DRC issued prior to the commencement of the Amendment Act. 15. We also note that this issue was not canvassed in the writ appeal. The petitioner now seeks to read Rule 9 to contend that all Rules applicable prior to the notification of the Rules would have to be applied. We find no merit in the said contention. 16. The review petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Sd/- (VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- (K.S. HEMALEKHA) JUDGE KMV List No.: 2 Sl No.: 4