- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4975 WP No. 16276 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 16276 OF 2018 (LB-RES) BETWEEN: SRI. ARVIND. A. M. S/O. A. C. MADE GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, NO.205, II CROSS, SUBHASHNAGAR, MANDYA-571 401. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SAMPATH BAPAT.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560 001, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE NELAMANGALA PLANNING AUTHORITY B.H. ROAD, SUBHASH NAGAR, NELAMANGALA-562 123. 3. ARISHINAKUNTE GRAMA PANCHAYATH ARISHINAKUNTE VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, REP BY PDO. Digitally signed by SHWETHA RAGHAVENDRA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4975 WP No. 16276 of 2018 4. NELAMANGALA CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL NELAMANGALA TOWN BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 5621 23 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. CHANDINI SINGH., AGA FOR R 1.; SRI.N.GURUMURTHY., ADVOCATE FOR R-2; SRI.J.N.NAVEEN., ADVOCATE FOR R-3; SRI.R.KALYAN., ADVOCATE FOR R-4) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DECLARE THAT THE CIRCULAR DATED 26.5.2005 VIDE ANNEXURE-J IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY; DIRECT THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO APPROVE THE BUILDING PLAN AS PER LAW WITHOUT INSISTING FOR PRODUCTION OF RELEASE ORDER ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ ORAL ORDER 1. Petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs: (a) A writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or Direction, declaring that the Circular dated 26.5.2005 No. No.ΝΑ.Ε.112 Bem.Ru. Pra.2005, vide Annexure-J is not applicable to the schedule property; and In the event of holding that the circular is applicable to schedule property, then, this Hon'ble court may be pleased to declare that Circular dated 26.5.2005 No. No.NA.E.112 Bem.Ru. Pra.2005, vide Annexure-J is prospective and not applicable to the Schedule property which was purchased on - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4975 WP No. 16276 of 2018 21.2.2005 i.e., prior to issue of the said circular; and (b) Direct the 3rd Respondent to approve the building plan as per law without insisting for production of 'release order'; and (c) Grant such other or further relief's as are just in the facts and Circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice. 2. One M/s Kanva Developers had developed a layout called Kanva Nagar. They claimed to have developed a layout called Kanvanagar in 8 acres and 39 guntas of land comprised in Sy. Nos. 94/7, 94/4a, 95/1a, 95/1b, 93/6, 94/5 and 94/8 at Danojipalya Hamlet, Arishinakunte Village, Kasba Hobli, Nalamangala taluk, Bengaluru rural District, after having obtained due conversion orders in relation thereto. It is claimed that the said developer had obtained a layout plan sanction on 31.08.2004 and subsequently had formed a layout. 3. The petitioner with the intention of purchasing a site had approached and purchased the site in terms of Annexure-A being a registered sale deed dated 21.02.2005. In terms of the said sale deed, the petitioner is stated to have purchased Site No. 38 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4975 WP No. 16276 of 2018 having Kaneshumari No. 65/38, measuring 30 feet x 40 feet, totally 1,200 square feet. 4. The petitioner had applied for a plan sanction and building licence, which is not accepted on the ground that the petitioner's site had not been released in terms of Circular dated 26.05.2005. Hence the petitioner had sought for a clarification that the said Circular would not be applicable to him since he had purchased the said site prior to the issuance of Circular. 5. In reply thereto, the respondent No.2 vide letter dated 21.04.2017 had indicated that only 60% of the sites had been released in favour of the developer, remaining 40% not having been released, the petitioner's site coming within that remaining 40%, no plan sanction could be granted. The layout not having been completed, the said sites would fall within the custody of respondent no. 2 for the purpose of completion of the layout and as such rejected the contention of the petitioner. In that background, the petitioner is before this Court seeking for the above reliefs. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4975 WP No. 16276 of 2018 6. The submission of Sri Sampath Bapat, learned counsel for the petitioner is that - 6.1 The Circular dated 26.05.2005 can only be said to be prospective in nature and cannot be applied retrospectively to the petitioner insofar as sale of a site by the developer in favour of the petitioner under the registered sale deed dated 21.02.2005. His submission is that the said Circular having come into force much subsequently, there have been no restriction on the purchase of any site by the petitioner, the petitioner has legally in a valid manner vide registered sale deed purchased the said site and as such the petitioner cannot be prevented from exercising due ownership right in respect thereto by putting up a construction thereon. 6.2 The developer has played fraud on the respondent No.2 inasmuch as the developer having sold several sites has not taken release of those sites, but sought for release of the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4975 WP No. 16276 of 2018 unsold sites, which has been granted by respondent No. 2. That action on the part of the developer has not been verified properly by respondent no. 2, resulting in injustice being caused to the petitioner in the aforesaid manner. In that background, he submits that the reliefs which have been sought for are required to be granted. 7. Sri N. Gurumurthy, learned counsel for respondent no. 2 would submit that - 7.1 Though the Circular came into force on 26.05.2005, the developer has accepted the said Circular and acted on the said Circular, has made application for release of sites in terms of the said Circular. 7.2 Respondent No.2 having released sites as per the application made, the layout not having been completed properly, it would be the duty of respondent no. 2 now to complete the said layout in terms of the Circular dated - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4975 WP No. 16276 of 2018 26.05.2005. The custody of those remaining plots being available with respondent no. 2, respondent no. 2 can sell the said sites, appropriate the amount towards the completion of the layout and as such in respect of the petitioner's site which has not been released, the petitioner cannot be granted a plan sanction. 7.3 He reiterates that petitioner's Site No. 38 is not part of the release order granted by respondent no. 2 and as such the petitioner cannot claim any right to put up any construction thereon. 8. Sri J.N. Naveen, the counsel for respondent no. 3, submits that respondent no. 3 is a formal party and if the no objection certificate is issued by respondent no. 2, the building plan will be sanctioned by respondent no. 3. 9. The submission of Sri R. Kalyan, learned counsel for respondent no. 4 is if a No Objection Certificate issued - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4975 WP No. 16276 of 2018 by respondent no. 2, respondent no. 4 would issue the necessary building plan sanction and building licence. 10. Heard Sri Sampath Bapat, counsel for petitioner; Smt. Chandini Singh, learned AGA for Respondent No.1; Sri N. Gurumurthy, counsel for Respondent No.2; Sri J.N. Naveen, counsel for Respondent No.3; and Sri R. Kalyan, counsel for Respondent No.4 and perused papers. 11. The points that would arise for consideration in the present matter are: i) Whether the Circular dated 26.5.2005 issued by the Urban Development Department is prospective in nature or could it be applied retrospectively to a site which has been sold prior to the Circular being issued ? ii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the present matter, Respondent No.2 could deny the issuance of a No Objection Certificate on the ground that the site of the petitioner has not been released in terms of circular dated 26.05.2005 ? iii) What order? 12. I answer the above points as follows:- - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4975 WP No. 16276 of 2018 13. Answer to Point No.(i): Whether the Circular dated 26.5.2005 issued by the Urban Development Department is prospective in nature or could it be applied retrospectively to a site which has been sold prior to the Circular being issued ? 13.1 It is not in dispute that the Circular was issued on 26.05.2005 and it is only in terms of said Circular that there was restriction imposed on a private layout developer from sale of the sites formed in the layout without obtaining a release from the Planning Authority. 13.2 The Planning Authority having sanctioned the layout on 31.08.2004, is not in dispute. It is further not in dispute that the petitioner has purchased Site No. 38 on 21.02.2005 which is much prior to the Circular coming into force on 26.05.2005. Now what the respondent no. 2 is seeking to do is to apply the Circular to a sale deed of the petitioner dated 21.02.2005 which is much prior to the Circular being issued and it is in that context that it is required to be - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4975 WP No. 16276 of 2018 considered as to whether the Circular is prospective or retrospective? 13.3 The Circular dated 26.05.2005 imposing a ban/ prohibition on sale of a site by a developer without obtaining a release order, that prohibition having penal consequences can in my considered opinion be said only to be prospective inasmuch as the Circular cannot be made applicable to a sale of a property which was made prior to the Circular coming into force. 13.4 At the most, it could be contended that any sales post the Circular coming into force on 26.05.2005 would be bound by said circular, but cannot be applied to a sale which has occurred prior to 26.05.2005 since there was neither any embargo nor prohibition in relation to such sale as on the date of the sale, which in this case is 21.02.2005. When the sale made in favour of the petitioner by the developer of the layout was not subject to or could not be said to be subject to - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4975 WP No. 16276 of 2018 the Circular dated 26.05.2005, it cannot now be contended by respondent no. 2 that the said Circular would apply. 13.5 In that view of the matter, the Circular dated 26.05.2005 having penal consequences of the remaining sites being vested with the planning authority with power to sell the said sites, appropriate the amount therefrom to complete the formation of the layout if the developer has not completed, cannot in my considered opinion be made retrospectively applicable to a site which has been sold prior to the Circular coming into force since the purchaser cannot be now put to a disadvantage to say that there is no release order passed in respect of his site. 13.6 Hence I answer Point No.(i) by holding that the Circular dated 26.05.2005 will not apply to sites sold under a registered sale deed prior to the Circular coming into force, but would however apply to all sales effected post 26.05.2005. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4975 WP No. 16276 of 2018 14. Answer to Point No.2: Whether in the facts and circumstances of the present matter, Respondent No.2 could deny the issuance of a No Objection Certificate on the ground that the site of the petitioner has not been released in terms of circular dated 26.05.2005 ? 14.1 The facts in this matter would categorically indicate that the sale in favour of the petitioner has occurred on 21.02.2005, whereas the Circular has come into force on 26.05.2005, which I have held to be prospective in nature and that the same cannot be retrospectively applied to the sale in favour of the petitioner on 21.02.2005. 14.2 In that view of the matter, merely because the layout formation has not been completed and all works have not been completed by the developer, would not entitle respondent no. 2 to deny the no-objection certificate to the petitioner for constructing on his property. - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4975 WP No. 16276 of 2018 14.3 I am also persuaded to arrive at this conclusion in the present matter for another reason inasmuch as when an application had been made by the developer for release of certain sites, it was required of Respondent No. 2 to ascertain the total number of sites which have been sanctioned, total number of sites which are to be formed and if any of those sites have been sold prior to the Circular coming into effect, to identify those sites and then include the same in the release order when applied for, inasmuch as the discretion could not have been left to the developer alone to seek for release of sites of his choice without seeking for release of sites which have already been sold. 14.4 This duty was vested with respondent no. 2 to discharge before such release of sites taking into consideration that the Circular came into force on 26.05.2005, whereas the layout plan was sanctioned on 31.08.2004 and in the interregnum there was always a possibility of - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4975 WP No. 16276 of 2018 the developer selling any site post the layout being approved. This duty cast on respondent no. 2 in respect of all the layouts which had been approved prior to the Circular coming into force, is my considered opinion. 14.5 The developer therefore having applied for release of sites of his choice, respondent No.2 not having verified if any other site had been sold in the said layout, I am of the considered opinion that the respondent no. 2 has not discharged its duties and as such on account of non-discharge of the duties on the part of respondent no. 2, the petitioner cannot be prevented from making use of his property for his personal use. 14.6 As such, I answer point No.(ii) by holding that in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, the respondent no. 2 would have been required to issue the no-objection certificate for the purpose of the plan sanction sought to be - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4975 WP No. 16276 of 2018 obtained by petitioner from the erstwhile respondent no. 3, which is now the Nelamangala City Municipal Council (Respondent No.4). 15. Answer to Point No.(iii); What order ? In view of my finding in respect of point nos. 1 and 2, it would be required to direct respondent no. 2 to issue a 'No Objection Certificate' for respondent No.4 to sanction a building plan and grant a building licence in terms of the applicable law as on today. As such, I pass the following: O R D E R i) Writ Petition is allowed. ii) It is declared that the Circular dated 26.05.2005 bearing No.NA.E.112 Bem.Ru.Pra.2005 at Annexure - 'J' is not applicable to the petition schedule property, which is subject matter of a registered sale deed in terms of Annexure - 'A' dated 21.02.2005. iii) Respondent no. 2 is directed to issue 'No Objection Certificate' to the petitioner stating - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4975 WP No. 16276 of 2018 its no objection for the petitioner to approach respondent no. 4 for sanction of building plan in accordance with the applicable laws including the building by-laws as applicable today. iv) Respondent no.4 is directed to consider the plan v) submitted for sanction by the petitioner along with the 'No Objection Certificate' issued by respondent no. 2 and approve the same within a period of sixty days from the date on which the plan is submitted to respondent No. 4. \ SD/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE GSS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15