Allowed¶46

Sri C Chethan Kumar v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC10 Jun 2025WP/15952/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Karnataka; WP No. 15952 of 2025 (BDA); M. Nagaprasanna J.; decided 10.06.2025; Bangalore Development Authority; change of land use application; endorsement dated 02.05.2025 quashed; Sections 14 and 14A Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act 1961; prospective acquisition not a ground to refuse or defer; W.P.No.19174/2022 followed; certiorari; Articles 226 and 227; direction to decide within three months.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; impugned endorsement dated 02.05.2025 in No. ¨ÉAC¥Áæ/£ÀAiÉÆÃ¸À/CLU-432/24-25/411/2025-26 issued by respondent No.3 set aside; respondent Nos.2 and 3 directed to reconsider the petitioner's application and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within an outer limit of three months ¶46

Sri C Chethan Kumar Vs the State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶46

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned endorsement dated 02.05.2025 issued by respondent No.3 is liable to be quashed and respondent Nos.2 and 3 directed to consider the petitioner's application, in light of the coordinate bench decision in W.P.No.19174/2022

¶28

Court's answer

The impugned endorsement dated 02.05.2025 issued by respondent No.3 is set aside and respondent Nos.2 and 3 are directed to consider the petitioner's application in terms of the observations made in the order of the coordinate bench in W.P.No.19174/2022.

¶43

Ratio / Principle

Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are directed to reconsider the petitioner's application and take appropriate decision / pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, bearing in mind the observations in this order, within an outer limit of three months.

¶51

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Certiorari under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India against an endorsement dated 02.05.2025 in No. ¨ÉAC¥Áæ/£ÀAiÉÆÃ¸À/CLU-432/24-25/411/2025-26 (Annexure-E) issued by respondent No.3 – Additional Director Town Planning, Bangalore Development Authority. Petitioner relied on the coordinate bench decision in W.P.No.19174/2022 (disposed 15.11.2022), wherein it was held that mere proposed prospective acquisition of the subject land by the State Government or BDA cannot be a reason for non-consideration of an application under Sections 14 and 14A of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961, no preliminary notification having been issued and no scheme submitted for approval. Counsel for the respondents did not dispute that position or the identical circumstance of the present case. Following the coordinate bench order, the Court set aside the impugned endorsement and directed respondent Nos.2 and 3 to reconsider the petitioner's application and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within an outer limit of three months. Writ petition allowed.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:19752 WP No. 15952 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 15952 OF 2025 (BDA)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI C.CHETHAN KUMAR S/O CHANNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/AT JUTTANAHALLI VILLAGE, KUNDANA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT – 562 110.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI PRASANNA B.R., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, VIKASA SOUDHA, 4^TH FLOOR, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶14

THE COMMISSIONER

¶15

BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST, BENGALURU – 560 020.

¶16

¶17

NC: 2025:KHC:19752 WP No. 15952 of 2025

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR TOWN PLANNING BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST, BENGALURU – 560 020.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS”

¶21

(BY SRI SPOORTHY HEGDE N., HCGP FOR R-1; SRI VASANTHA, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R-3)

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT DATED 02.05.2025 IN NO. ¨ÉAC¥Áæ/£ÀAiÉÆÃ¸À/CLU-432/24-25/411/2025-26 ISSUED BY THE R3 VIDE ANNEXURE -E.

¶23

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

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

The petitioner is before this Court seeking the following

¶27

prayer:

¶28

“i) ISSUE a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned endorsement dated 02.05.2025 in No.¨ÉAC¥Áæ/£ÀAiÉÆÃ¸À/CLU-432/2425/411/2025-26 issued by the 3^rd respondent vide ANNEXURE – E.

¶29

ii) ISSUE any writ order or direction which deemed fit in the circumstances of the case.”

¶30

¶31

NC: 2025:KHC:19752 WP No. 15952 of 2025

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

Heard Sri Prasanna B.R., learned counsel for petitioner, Sri Spoorthy Hegde N., learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 and Sri Vasantha, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3.

¶34

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that in an identical circumstance, a coordinate bench of this Court has considered the issue in W.P.No.19174/2022, disposed on 15.11.2022.

¶35

Learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 and learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 would not dispute the position of law as is considered by the coordinate bench and the identical circumstance in the case at hand.

¶36

The order passed in W.P.No.19174/2022, by the coordinate bench, reads as follows:

¶37

“8. As rightly contended by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, a plain reading of Section 14 and 14A of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961 will clearly indicate that mere proposed prospective acquisition simpliciter sometime in the future by the State Government or BDA in relation to the subject land cannot be construed or treated as a reason for non-consideration of application under Section 14 or 14A of the Karnataka

¶38

¶39

NC: 2025:KHC:19752 WP No. 15952 of 2025

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

Town and Country Planning Act, 1961. It is also relevant to state that no preliminary notification has been issued by the respondent No.2 – BDA so far and no scheme for approval has been submitted by the BDA to the State Government even till today.

¶42

Under these circumstances, merely because the State Government and the BDA are in the process of considering and taking necessary steps to initiate acquisition proceedings in relation to the subject land, the said circumstance cannot be made the basis or a ground for the BDA to keep the application for change of land use in abeyance on the sole premise that discussions and communications are happening between the State Government and the BDA as regards acquisition of the subject lands. Under these circumstances, I am of the view that the impugned endorsement issued by the BDA refusing to consider the application for change of land use submitted by the petitioner is clearly illegal and arbitrary and contrary to law as well as the provisions of Sections 14 and 14A of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961 and the same deserves to be quashed and necessary directions to be issued to respondent No.2 – BDA to consider and take appropriate decision on the application within a stipulated time frame.”

¶43

In that light, I deem it appropriate to set aside the impugned endorsement and direct respondent Nos.2 and 3 to consider the application of the petitioner, in terms of the observations made in the afore-quoted order.

¶44

For the aforesaid reasons, the following:

¶45

ORDER

¶46

i) The writ petition is allowed.

¶47

¶48

NC: 2025:KHC:19752 WP No. 15952 of 2025

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

ii) Impugned endorsement dated 02.05.2025, bearing No. ¨ÉAC¥Áæ/£ÀAiÉÆÃ¸À/CLU-432/24-25/411/202526, issued by respondent No.3, is hereby set aside.

¶51

iii) Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are directed to reconsider the application of the petitioner and take appropriate decision / pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, bearing in mind the observations made in this order, within an outer limit of three months from today, if not earlier.

¶52

Sd/(M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE

¶53

NVJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14

Sri C Chethan Kumar v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri C Chethan Kumar v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. Putta Narasaiah Vs Smt. Nagarathnamma

M/S Hdfc Bank Ltd., Vs the Registrar, City Civil Court

Sri. R. K. Madhvesh Vs Sri. T. R. Devaraj, Since Deceased by Lrs, Smt Padmaja

Sri Sadashivaiah Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Sri Channabasavaiah Alias Channabasappa Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Smt. Bagyamma Vs the State of Karnataka