Allowed¶42

Sri Janu Naika v. the Director

Karnataka HC17 Nov 2025WP/14484/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bifurcation of converted land; single site layout permission; Section 17 Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act 1961; building licence refusal; Puttur Urban Development Authority endorsement dated 09.03.2018; Circular dated 04.05.2017; Sy.No.46/7 Puttur; certiorari and mandamus; W.P. No. 14484 of 2018 (LB-RES); Karnataka HC 2025.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; impugned endorsement bearing No.¸ÀÜ.AiÉÆÃ.¥Áæ.¥ÀÄ.»A.¥À.¸ÀA/608/17-18 dated 09.03.2018 issued by respondent No.2 quashed; respondent No.2 directed to approve the single site building plan within three months from receipt of a certified copy of the Order; petitioner may approach respondent No.3 for a licence to construct the building. ¶42

Sri Janu Naika Vs the Director — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶42

Issue for consideration

Whether the Circular dated 04.05.2017 issued by respondent No.1 restraining grant of single site layout permission applies to the petitioner's land, whose conversion predates the Circular. +1 more

¶31

Ratio / Principle

There is no prohibition in the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961 against bifurcation of converted land; Section 17 of that Act pertains to bifurcation of plots which are part of a layout and therefore does not apply to land converted for non-agricultural purposes.

¶41

Key takeaways

The endorsement dated 09.03.2018 issued by respondent No.2 rejecting the petitioner's application on the ground that 6.25 cents was unauthorisedly bifurcated out of 25 cents in Sy.No.46/7, and therefore licence cannot be issued, is without authority of law.ratio¶41

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka (R. Nataraj J.), by oral order dated 17.11.2025 in W.P. No. 14484 of 2018 (LB-RES) under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, allowed a petition challenging the endorsement dated 09.03.2018 of the Puttur Urban Development Authority (respondent No.2) refusing plan approval for construction of a house on 6.25 cents purchased by sale deed dated 19.05.2015 out of 25 cents in Sy.No.46/7, Puttur, which had been converted for residential purpose on 29.07.2010; refusal rested on alleged unauthorised bifurcation and a Circular dated 04.05.2017 of respondent No.1 against single site layout permissions. The Court held that there is no prohibition in the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961 against bifurcation of converted land, and that Section 17 of that Act pertains to bifurcation of plots forming part of a layout and does not apply to land converted for non-agricultural purposes; accordingly the endorsement was quashed as without authority of law, respondent No.2 was directed to approve the single site building plan within three months, and the petitioner was left free to approach respondent No.3 (Town Municipal Council, Puttur) for a building licence. The Circular itself was not separately ordered to be quashed in the order as extracted.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:47146 WP No. 14484 of 2018

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 14484 OF 2018 (LB-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. JANU NAIKA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, S/O SRI KRISHNA NAIKA URLANDI, BAPPALIGE PUTTUR-574201, D.K. DISTRICT.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. CHANDRANATH ARIGA K., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE DIRECTOR URBAN AND RURAL PROJECT DIRECTOR STATE OF KARNATAKA DR. AMBEDKAR ROAD BENGALURU-560 001

¶13

Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

THE PUTTUR URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MUNICIPAL COMPLEX PUTTUR-574201, D.K.

¶15

TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL PUTTUR

¶16

TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL BUILDING REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF OFFICER PUTTUR-574201, D.K.

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI. B. BOPANNA, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1;

¶19

SRI. A. KESHAVA BHAT, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.3; NOTICE SERVED ON RESPONDENT NO.2)

¶20

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:47146 WP No. 14484 of 2018

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE CIRCULAR NO.GR YON: BUILDING LICENCE:CIRCULAR:2015-16 DATED 04.05.2017 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 [ANNEXUREE] AND ETC.

¶23

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

The petitioner has sought for a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the Circular bearing No.£ÀUÁæAiÉÆÃ¤.PÀlÖqÀ ¥ÀgÀªÁ¤UÉ:¸ÀÄvÉÆÛÃ¯É:2015-16 dated 04.05.2017 issued by respondent No.1 as well as the endorsement bearing No.¸ÀÜ.AiÉÆÃ.¥Áæ.¥ÀÄ.»A.¥À.¸ÀA/608/17-18 dated 09.03.2018 issued by respondent No.2. He has also sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the respondent No.3 to sanction the plan in his favour.

¶27

The petitioner claims that he purchased a converted land measuring 6.25 cents in Puttur Town in Sy.No.46/7 in terms of a sale deed dated 19.05.2015. The land purchased by him was a portion of 25 cents in Sy.No.46/7, which was

¶28

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:47146 WP No. 14484 of 2018

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

converted for residential purpose on 29.07.2010. The petitioner claims that he filed an application to respondent No.2 seeking approval of the plan for construction of a house on the property purchased by him. The respondent No.2 by the impugned endorsement dated 09.03.2018 rejected the application of the petitioner on the ground that 6.25 cents of land was unauthorisedly bifurcated out of 25 cents of land in Sy.No.46/7 and therefore, licence cannot be issued. The petitioner was informed that there was a Circular issued by respondent No.1 that a single site layout permission should not be granted. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶31

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had purchased the property on 19.05.2015 and on that day, the property was already converted. Therefore, the application seeking licence for construction of a house ought to have been granted by respondent No.2. He further contends that the Circular issued by respondent No.1 is dated 04.05.2017 and hence, it is not applicable to the petitioner since the order of conversion in respect of his land

¶32

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:47146 WP No. 14484 of 2018

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

was prior to the Circular. He further contended that the application for licence to construct a building was in respect of residentially converted land. Therefore, the authority was bound to consider the application for licence based on the dimension of the plot of land on which the construction was proposed. He therefore, contends that the impugned Circular issued by respondent No.1 as well as the impugned endorsement issued by the respondent No.2 are liable to be quashed.

¶35

The learned Additional Government Advocate for

¶36

respondent No.1 submitted that 6.25 cents of land was unauthorisedly bifurcated out of 25 cents of land in Sy.No.46/7 and therefore, licence cannot be issued. Further, there was a Circular issued by respondent No.1 that single site layout permission should not be granted. He therefore, submits that the impugned endorsement is just and proper.

¶37

I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.1.

¶38

¶39

NC: 2025:KHC:47146 WP No. 14484 of 2018

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

It is not in dispute that the land in question was converted for non-agricultural purposes and that the conversion was for the purpose of forming residential sites. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner is the owner of the land bearing Sy.No.46/7 measuring 6.25 cents. This Court finds no prohibition in the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961, against bifurcation of converted land. Section 17 of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961 pertains to the bifurcation of plots which are part of a layout, and therefore, does not apply to land that has been converted for nonagricultural purposes. Therefore, the endorsement dated 09.03.2018 issued by respondent No.2 rejecting the application of the petitioner on the ground that 6.25 cents of land was unauthorisedly bifurcated out of 25 cents of land in Sy.No.46/7 and therefore, licence cannot be issued, is without authority of law.

¶42

In that view of the matter, writ petition is allowed. The impugned endorsement bearing No.¸ÀÜ.AiÉÆÃ.¥Áæ.¥ÀÄ.»A.¥À.¸ÀA/ 608/17-18 dated 09.03.2018 issued by respondent No.2 is quashed. The respondent No.2 is directed to approve single

¶43

¶44

NC: 2025:KHC:47146 WP No. 14484 of 2018

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

site building plan within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this Order. It is open for the petitioner to approach the respondent No.3 for a licence to construct the building.

¶47

Sd/(R. NATARAJ) JUDGE

¶48

PMR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 57

Sri Janu Naika v. the Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Janu Naika v. the Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

C L Puttannaiah Vs Smt. Chandramma

Sri Darshan H R Vs the State of Karnataka

S M Mohammed @ N M Muhammad Vs Dilshad Begum a S

Sri Srikanth Chowdary Marri @ Srikanth Vs the Chief Commissioner

Girish Kumar T M Vs Deputy Commissioner

Smt Muniyamma Since Deceased by Her Lrs Vs Sri Muninarasimhaiah