- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8866 WP No. 17914 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 17914 OF 2021 (LB-RES) BETWEEN: M/S LTG INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED REGISTERED O/AT L T G TOWER, NO.3,4,5, AND 6, III FLOOR, BDA OUTER RING ROAD, NEAR KEMPEGOWDA NAGAR ARCH, LAGGERE, BANGALORE-560058 REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, MR H P LAKSHMANA, S/O LATE PUTTAPPA @ PUTTABASAPPA, AGE 52 YEARS. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. L.M. CHIDANANDAYYA., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. RAVINDRA PRASAD B.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS UNDER SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, VIKAS SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560001 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER RAMANAGARA DIVISION, RAMANAGARA-562159. 3. THE BANGALORE-MYSORE INFRASTRUCTURE CORRIDOR AREA PLANNING AUTHORITY, NO.5, 2ND FLOOR, LOOP LANE, RACE COURSE ROAD, BANGALORE-560009 Digitally signed by SHWETHA RAGHAVENDRA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8866 WP No. 17914 of 2021 REP BY ITS MEMBER SECRETARY/ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR 4. TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING AUTHORITY NO.4, M S BUILDING, 4TH FLOOR, 6TH BLOCK, NEAR VIDHANA SOUDHA, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU KARNATAKA-560001 REP BY ITS DIRECTOR …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. CHANDINI SINGH., HCGP FOR R1 & R2; SRI. YOGESH D. NAIK., ADVOCATE FOR R3 & R4) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT DTD 31.05.2019 ISSUED BY THE R-3 VIDE ANNX-E AND ETC. THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ ORAL ORDER 1. The Petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs: a) Issue a writ of certiorari quashing the impugned endorsement No. BMICAPA/VINYASA-02/21/2018- 19/443 dated 31.05.2019 issued by the Respondent No.3 vide Annexure-E. b) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the R3 to sanction the plan in respect of A Kharab Land of Sy.No.1 of 05 Guntas and 68/2 of 05 Guntas situated at Kodiyalakarenahalli Village, Bidadi Hobli, Ramnagara. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8866 WP No. 17914 of 2021 c) Pass such other writ, order or direction that this Hon’ble Court deems fit to pass in the circumstances of the case. 2. Petitioner claims to be the absolute owner and in possession of the properties bearing Survey No.67/1, 68/1m 67/3, 68/2 and Survey No. 69, in all measuring 12 acres 21 guntas along with 20 guntas of karab, at Kodiyalakarenahalli Village, Bidadi Hobli, Ramanagara, having purchased the same under the registered sale dated 09.11.2018. The Petitioner made an application for a change of land use as per Section 14A of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961 [‘KTCP Act’ for short] and made payment of the requisite fees. The respondent No.1 granted the permission for change of land use in terms of the Government Order dated 04.06.2016, which is confirmed by respondent No. 4 vide order dated 15.06.2016. 3. Pursuant thereto, the Petitioner had filed an application with respondent No.3 for sanction of a - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8866 WP No. 17914 of 2021 layout plan as regards which, an endorsement came to be issued on 31.05.2019 stating that, insofar as land in Survey No.68/1 and 68/2 are concerned, each of them has 5 guntas of A-karab and as regard these lands, no plan sanction could be made. It is challenging the same, the Petitioner is before this Court. 4. Submission of Sri.Chidanandayya, learned counsel for the Petitioner, is that the respondents have not taken into account the change of land use granted on 04.06.2018, which also takes into consideration 10 guntas of A-karab i.e., 5 guntas out of 10 guntas of A-Karab in Survey No. 68/1 and 5 guntas of A-karab in Survey No. 68/2. His submission is that it is only with respect to these Karab lands, as regards which a change of land use has been granted, that a layout plan sanction has been sought for, and no plan has been sought for as in respect of the remaining 5 guntas of Karab land in Survey No. 67/1. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8866 WP No. 17914 of 2021 5. His submission is that the market value of the property, as also the conversion fees having been paid in respect of the aforesaid five gunta's each, the property is now a converted land, as regards which the respondent would have no authority nor can it be said to be reserved for public use. On that basis, he submits that the endorsement which has been issued is required to be quashed and a mandamus issued directing respondents to consider the grant of plan sanction in respect of Sy.No.68/1 and 68/2, including 5 guntas each of A-kharab which had been situated therein earlier. 6. Sri.Yogesh D. Naik, learned counsel for respondents No. 3 and 4 submits that reservation of 5 guntas each in the aforesaid Sy.No.68/1 and 68/2 having been made for public purpose, the said land has to continue for public purpose. Merely because a conversion has happened, it would not entitle the Petitioner to form a layout in the said land. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8866 WP No. 17914 of 2021 7. Heard Sri.L.M.Chidanandayya, learned counsel for Sri.Ravindra Prasad.B, learned counsel for the Petitioner, Smt.Chandini Singh, learned HCGP for respondents No.1 and 2 and Sri.Yogesh D.Naik, learned counsel for respondents No.3 and 4. Perused papers. 8. The short question that would arise for consideration in the present matter is, as to whether once change of land use is granted by the Development Authority, in respect of the said land, in consonance with the Zoning Regulations of the Urban Development Authority, market value of A-Karab land has been received by the Deputy Commissioner, conversion fine also having been received by the Deputy Commissioner, conversion of the property having been made for non-agricultural purposes, could a restriction be imposed on development of the erstwhile A-Karab land? - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8866 WP No. 17914 of 2021 9. The facts in the present matter are not in dispute. The ownership of the Petitioner in respect of the aforesaid land is not in dispute. The existence of A- kharab in the lands covered under Survey Nos. 68/1 and 68/2 is also not in dispute, but what is required to be considered is that, vide the conversion order dated 13.10.2018, the aforesaid land was converted from agriculture to non-agricultural purposes by receiving the market value of the kharab land. The right of the Government in respect of A-kharab stands extinguished, and the land vests with the owner. 10. Once permission for change of land use was granted on 04.06.2016 and a conversion order has been granted on 13.10.2018, the land is no longer agriculture in nature and has been converted as zone for non-agricultural residential purposes, the Government having received the consideration for regularising the A-kharab, the Development - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8866 WP No. 17914 of 2021 Authority, in my considered opinion, cannot now still insist that there is an extent of A-kharab land and not sanction a development plan to the Petitioner for the formation of a layout. Once the land stands regularised, there is no A-Kharab which can be said to be in existence, the land becomes regular land, which has been converted for non-agricultural purposes in terms of Zoning Regulations, the Petitioner would be entitled to develop the land. 11. In that view of the matter, I pass the following: ORDER i. The writ petition is allowed. A certiorari is issued and the impugned endorsement No.BMICAPA/VINYASA-02/21/2018-19/443 dated 31.05.2019 issued by the respondent No.3 vide Annexure-E is quashed. ii. A mandamus is issued directing respondent No.3 to consider the application of the - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8866 WP No. 17914 of 2021 Petitioner dated 23.05.2019 within 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. SD/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE LN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7 - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8866 WP No. 17914 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU [M/S LTG INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED VS. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS] 19.02.2026 (VIDEO CONFERENCING / PHYSICAL HEARING) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ ORAL ORDER "FOR BEING SPOKEN TO" 1. Matter has been moved for being spoken to by the counsel for respondent Nos.3 and 4. 2. His submission is that when the above matter was disposed of on 12.02.2026, he could not bring to the notice of this Court the operative portion of the conversion order dated 13.10.2018 at Annexure-D. His submission is that though in paragraph '6' of the said order it has been mentioned that 5 guntas in Survey No.68/1 and 5 guntas in Survey No.68/2, being A-karab, have been regularized by collecting the market value. The operative portion indicates that it is only 2 acres 7 guntas in Survey No.68/1 and 2 acres 6 guntas in Survey No.68/2 which have been converted and as such, the respondent Nos. 3 and 4, who are the Planning Authority, - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8866 WP No. 17914 of 2021 can only act upon the operative portion of the conversion order and it is for that reason that the plan which had been submitted by the petitioner had been rejected. 3. His further submission is that even the change of land use granted much earlier on 04.06.2016 is for an extent of 4 acres 13 guntas in Survey No.68. Thus, he submits that both the change of land use and the conversion being only in respect of 4 acres 13 guntas, it is that extent which could be considered by the respondent Nos.3 and 4/Planning Authority while considering the application submitted by the petitioner. 4. The submission of Sri L.M.Chidanandayya, learned counsel for the petitioner, would once again still rely on paragraph '6' of the conversion order dated 13.10.2018 to contend that once the market value and conversion fine have been received, it is but required for the respondents to consider the same as converted. 5. Heard Sri. L.M.Chidanandayya, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Yogesh D. Naik, learned counsel for respondent Nos.3 and 4 and perused papers. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8866 WP No. 17914 of 2021 6. Though paragraph '6' of the conversion order refers to receipt of market value in respect of 5 guntas each of A- karab in Survey No.68/1 and Survey No.68/2, the fact remains that the operative portion of the conversion order, which has the effect of converting the land, is restricted to 2 acres 7 guntas in Survey No.68/1 and 2 acres 6 guntas in Survey No.68/2 totally measuring to 4 acres 13 guntas. There is no conversion order granted in respect of the 10 guntas claimed by the petitioner, despite the conversion fine and market value having been paid. 7. The change of land use order also reflects that the change of land use is in respect of 4 acres and 13 guntas. These two documents being issued by different authorities. The planning authority/respondent Nos.3 and 4 now cannot go beyond those two documents. If at all there is any correction required to be carried out in those documents, the petitioner would have to avail of those remedies, get those orders corrected, and then submit it to respondent Nos.3 and 4 for consideration. - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8866 WP No. 17914 of 2021 8. In that view of the matter, the order dated 12.02.2026 stands recalled. The petition stands dismissed. Reserving liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate authorities as indicated supra. 9. If such applications are filed by the petitioner, the concerned authorities are directed to consider the same and pass necessary orders as expeditiously as possible. SD/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE GJM List No.: 2 Sl No.: 2