- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18151-DB WA No. 1032 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF APRIL, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF WRIT APPEAL NO. 1032 OF 2024 (LB-BMP) BETWEEN: 1. THE COMMISSIONER, BRUHUT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE, N R SQUARE, BANGALORE - 560 001. 2. THE JOINT DIRECTOR, BRUHUT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE, N R SQUARE, BANGALORE - 560 001. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. MONESH KUMAR K B., ADVOCATE) AND: M/S. SUVILAS PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED, A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE PROVISION OF INDIAN COMPANIES ACT, HAVING OFFICE AT NO.100 (OLD NO.52), DONNA BASS TOWER, RAILWAY PARALLEL ROAD, BANGALORE -560 020. REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN SUNIL CHOWDARY. …RESPONDENT Digitally signed by REKHA R Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18151-DB WA No. 1032 of 2024 (BY SRI. NARASIMHA PRASAD S D., ADVOCATE) WRIT APPEAL FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN WP No.6472/2023 AND PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED:03.01.2024 PASSED IN WP No.6472/2023 (LB-BMP) PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE AND BE FURTHER PLEASED TO DISMISS THE WP No.6472/2023 AND ETC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF) This intra Court appeal is filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961, by the Commissioner, Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike1 along with Joint Director, who were respondent Nos.1 and 2 in W.P.No.6472/2023, challenging the order dated 03.01.2024 passed by the Writ Court. 1 for short, 'the BBMP' - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18151-DB WA No. 1032 of 2024 2. Under the impugned order, the Writ Court allowed the Writ Petition and directed the respondents to issue a modified building plan/ license with FAR of 2.5 taking into consideration the road width to be greater than 18 meters (in this case 18.4 meters) in a time bound manner. 3. The parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Writ Court. 4. Facts germane to file this appeal are as under: The petitioner was before the Writ Court seeking following reliefs: "a) Issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to issue Building sanction plan in respect of the lands bearing Sy.Nos.60/3(P) of Shettihalli Village and Sy.Nos.20, 21, 22 and 29 of Myadarahalli Village, Yeshwanthapura Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, totally measuring to an extent of 7 Acres 6½ Guntas and grant 2.5 FAR forthwith; - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18151-DB WA No. 1032 of 2024 aa) Issue a Writ of Certiorari quashing the impugned endorsement bearing No.JDTP(N)/PR/1911/2022-23 issued by Respondent No.2 dated 30.03.2023 vide Annexure-J. b) Issue any other writ, direction or order which deems fit to grant in the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity." 5. The petitioner claims to be the owner of the land in Sy.Nos.20, 21, 22 and 29 of Myadarahalli Village and Sy.No.60/3 of Shettihalli Village, Bangalore North Taluk, totally measuring 07 Acres 6½ Guntas. For the purpose of developing the said land and putting up multi- storied residential apartments approached several authorities and obtained approvals & NOC's and thereafter, applied for sanction of development plan to the Bangalore Development Authority2. 6. The BDA declined to issue Development Plan on the premise that there are certain encroachments on the 2 for short, 'the BDA' - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18151-DB WA No. 1032 of 2024 existing public road, which made the petitioner to approach the Writ Court in W.P.No.36979/2014. The Writ Court vide order dated 06.10.2015 allowed the petition and directed the BDA to issue development plan. The BBMP was also party to the said proceedings. 7. Subsequent to the development plan issued by the BDA, the petitioner made an application for modification of the plan with the BBMP submitting that he has claimed the lesser FAR than the one for which the petitioner is eligible, in view of the fact that road width is more than 18 meters. As the request was not considered, the petitioner was before the Court in the present Writ Petition seeking Mandamus. However during the pendency of the Writ Petition, the BBMP issued an endorsement declining to accede the application. The petitioner filed an application seeking amendment to insert prayer of Certiorari against the said endorsement and the same was allowed, permitting the petitioner to amend the petition to include the prayer of Certiorari. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18151-DB WA No. 1032 of 2024 8. The case argued before the Writ Court by the petitioner was that the road width is more than 18 meters in the case on hand is 18.4 meters and as per the existing Regulations, the petitioner is entitled for a FAR of 2.50, as the width of the road is 18 meters upto 24 meters, instead of the one sanctioned in the plan for FAR of 2.25. 9. It was further argued before the Writ Court that in the Writ Petition filed against the BDA, wherein the BBMP was also a party in W.P.No.36979/2014, the Writ Court taking into consideration the letter dated 18.04.2014 issued by the Officer of the BBMP, wherein the road width has been certified to be 18.4 meters and in that view of the matter, the BDA was directed to consider the said width and issue plan. Hence, the BBMP cannot claim that the road width is not 18.4 meters, but less than 18 meters. It was also argued that a Relinquishment Deed was executed in favor of the BBMP wherein the road width was shown as 18.4 meters. The BBMP having admitted the contents of Relinquishment Deed, now cannot take a U- - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18151-DB WA No. 1032 of 2024 turn and say that the road width is below 18 meters. Certain photographs have also been produced before the Writ Court showing the road width. 10. It was further submitted before the Writ Court that the BDA while sanctioning development plan on 16.05.2022, conducted a spot inspection and has come to conclusion that road width is 18.4 meters and sanctioned the plan. In these circumstances, the contention now taken by the BBMP is not permissible. With this, the petitioner sought to allow the Writ Petition. 11. In contrast, the BBMP opposed the arguments of the petitioner and made submission that the road width is 17.5 meters. It was argued that the said width was even found in the earlier plan initially submitted to the BDA and thereafter it was modified to 18.4 meters and further submitted that on inspection which was carried out, the access road measures differently at different places and in many places it is less than 18 meters. It is for this reason, - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18151-DB WA No. 1032 of 2024 the respondents have not approved modification and issued modified sanction plan. Further it was submitted that since the road width is less than 18 meters, the petitioners are entitled for FAR of 2.25, which is accordingly granted. If the higher FAR is made available, there would be increase in the number of apartments which can be constructed, would put pressure on the road and it is for this reason, the modification has not been permitted. Further it was submitted that the BBMP is not aware of the Letter and under what circumstances the said letter has been issued by the Assistant Executive Engineer on 18.01.2014 in the earlier Writ Petition filed against the BDA, wherein the BBMP is also a party and in that view of the matter the letter issued by some official is not binding on the BBMP. However to a query by the Writ Court as to whether any action has been contemplated against the person who has issued the information against the BBMP, a submission was made that no such action has been contemplated so far. Further, to the query with respect to - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18151-DB WA No. 1032 of 2024 the order passed by the Writ Court in W.P.No.36979/2014 dated 06.10.2015 wherein the Writ Court taking into consideration of the Letter dated 18.01.2014 issued by the BBMP to the BDA certifying that the road width is 18.4 meters, why the present contention taken before this Court was not placed before the Writ Court in the earlier Writ Petition, the counsel for the respondent BBMP was answerless. 12. Further, the counsel was unable to explain regarding the relinquishment deed executed by one Mr.K.V.Naidu in respect of road being mentioned at 18.4 meters width. However, the learned counsel for the respondent BBMP innocuously has submitted that the respondent do not know in what circumstances the road width is shown in the said relinquishment deed. As such, the relinquishment deed cannot be taken into consideration for the purpose of determining the width of the road. With this, he sought to dismiss the Writ Petition relying on the judgment of BHARAT AMRATLAL - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18151-DB WA No. 1032 of 2024 KOTHARI VS. DOSUKHAN SAMADKHAN SINDHI3, to contend that the Writ Court cannot direct the BBMP to grant a building license with a FAR of 2.5 since no such relief has been sought for, more particularly stressing on the Paragraph No.29 and 30 of the Judgment of the Supreme Court. 13. The Writ Court having considered the rival submissions advanced by the parties, after going through the entire record, especially relinquishment deed as well as the Letter by the Assistant Executive Engineer and the order passed by the Writ Court in the earlier occasion, found that the width of the road is 18.4 meters. The Writ Court further considered the fact that the BBMP being a party in W.P.No.36979/2014 has not challenged the order passed on the basis of the letter issued by the BBMP stating the road width to be 18.4 meters. 3 (2010) 1 SCC 234 - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18151-DB WA No. 1032 of 2024 14. The Writ Court in the teeth of these documents, held that the citizen of the Country would be entitled to make use of his or her or their property in the best possible manner in accordance with law and such citizen cannot be deprived of making lawful use of the property, when the law permits a FAR of 2.5 in respect of road measuring greater than 18 meters and in the case of hand it is 18.4 meters, hence the petitioner cannot be deprived of such FAR that is to the extent of 2.5. Having reasoned the order, the court finally concluded that the Endorsement issued by the BBMP is unsustainable in law. Accordingly, allowed the Writ Petition and directed the respondents to issue modified building plan/license with FAR of 2.5 taking into consideration the road width to be greater than 18 meters (in this case 18.4 meters) in a time bound manner. It is this order passed by the Writ Court is called in question in this appeal. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18151-DB WA No. 1032 of 2024 15. Heard, Sri.Monesh Kumar.K.B, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri.Narasimha Prasad.S.D, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 16. Sri.Monesh Kumar.K.B, more or less argued the very same contentions which the BBMP has taken before the Writ Court. No new ground has been urged by the BBMP than the one urged before the Writ Court. When queried regarding the letter issued by the Assistant Executive Engineer dated 18.01.2014 as well as any action contemplated against such officer who has given information against the BBMP, the counsel is answerless as he was before the Writ Court. Further he is not in a position to explain the averments made in the relinquishment deed, wherein it is clearly stated that the road width is 18.4 meters, executed by one Mr.K.V.Naidu in favor of the BBMP. The BBMP having got the relinquishment deed and having issued the letter and suffered an order being party in the earlier Writ Petition, wherein in the letter issued by the official of BBMP stating - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18151-DB WA No. 1032 of 2024 that the road width is 18.4 meters, which has been considered by the Writ court and the order has been passed against the BDA to issue the development plan, now cannot take a U-term/ backtrack and contend that the road is not 18 meters or that the access road measures differently at different places and many places it is lesser than 18 meters. Hence, the contentions of Sri.Monesh Kumar.K.B, cannot be countenanced. 17. It is not in dispute that there was an inspection by the BDA and while issuing the development plan in the year 2022, wherein it is clearly mentioned that the road width is 18.4 meters. In that view of the matter, we find no reasons to interfere with the well reasoned order passed by the Writ Court. 18. The second attempt by the BBMP by filing this writ appeal reeks with malafides in view of the contention taken by the petitioner before the Writ Court that there was some demand by certain officer i.e., the Joint Director - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18151-DB WA No. 1032 of 2024 of BBMP for processing the application and in that regard a complaint has also been lodged with the Karnataka Lokayukta. 19. This appeal is filed without any improvement on the contentions taken before the Writ Court. The very same contentions which were urged before the Writ Court which were considered and rejected by the Writ Court. There are more than one reason found by the Writ Court to allow the Writ Petition, be it the relinquishment deed or be it the letter of the Assistant Executive Engineer, BBMP or be it the spot inspection conducted by the BDA while issuing the development plan in the year 2022. The BBMP disowned its own stand before the Writ Court which was taken in the earlier Writ Petition for the best reasons known to it. This conduct of the BBMP being a statutory body required to be deprecated and cannot be allowed. In that view of the matter, we dismiss the Writ Appeal with cost of Rs.25,000/- payable to the Karnataka Advocates' Clerks Benevolent Trust, High Court of Karnataka, - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18151-DB WA No. 1032 of 2024 Bengaluru within four weeks weeks, lest the Registry is directed to issue a certificate to the concerned jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner as if it is a land revenue and recover & deposit the same before the Karnataka Advocates' Clerks Benevolent Trust, High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru within one month thereafter. Sd/- (D K SINGH) JUDGE Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE TKN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6 ct-vn