Mr.D.Purushothama Vs the State of Karnataka

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT SOUDHA BUILDING AMBEDKAR VEEDHI SAMPANGI RAMA NAGAR BENGALURU- 560001 REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY

¶13

MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY JHANSI RANI LAKSHMI BAI RD CHAMARAJAPURA, CHAMARAJAPURAM MOHALLA LAKSHMIPURAM MYSURU-570005 REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER.

¶14

…RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SRI.H.K.KENCHEGOWDA, AGA FOR R.1; SRI.SACHIN V R, ADVOCATE FOR R.2)

¶16

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:26342 WP No. 16150 of 2025

¶17

HC-KAR

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI SETTING ASIDE THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 17.04.2025 PASSED BY THE 2^ND RESPONDENT IN NO.MINAPRA NAYOSHA.NA.AA.NAYO-02/529/2024-25 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.

¶19

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶20

ORAL ORDER

¶21

The petitioner is aggrieved by the endorsement dated 17.04.2025 issued by respondent No.2. The said endorsement is under challenge.

¶22

2. Respondent No.2 had notified the various sites including site No.811 situated at Vijayanagar 4^th Stage, 1^st Phase, Mysuru for public auction. The petitioner’s brother namely D.Shivakumar participated in the auction and was declared as highest bidder in respect of the site No.811. Respondent No.2, accordingly, executed the registered sale deed dated 27.12.2021 in favour of D.Shivakumar in respect of site No.811. On 01.02.2022,

¶23

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:26342 WP No. 16150 of 2025

¶24

HC-KAR

¶25

Khatha was registered in the name of the petitioner’s brother. Subsequently, the said D.Shivakumar gifted the schedule property in favour of the petitioner under registered Gift Deed dated 12.12.2023.

¶26

3. The petitioner submitted an application addressed to respondent No.2 requesting to sanction a building license to construct a commercial building over the schedule property, which was applied through on-line on 01.02.2024 vide PGC No.1090.

¶27

4. Respondent No.2, on receipt of the application, sent intimation calling upon the petitioner to deposit the fee for sanction of building license. Despite receipt of fee, respondent No.2 has rejected the application submitted by the petitioner declining to issue license for construction of a commercial complex on the premises that the same cannot be sanctioned in the light of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Appeal No.3600/2011. The said endorsement is under challenge.

¶28

4 -

¶29

NC: 2025:KHC:26342 WP No. 16150 of 2025

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would point out that the reported judgment rendered by the Co-ordinate Bench would not detain the issue raised in the captioned writ petition. Placing reliance on the judgment rendered by the Co-ordinate Bench, which is evidenced at Annexure-N, he would contend that the issue on hand has been substantially addressed and resolved by the reported judgment rendered by the Co-ordinate Bench. Referring to the relevant paragraph Nos.22 and 23, he would contend that the endorsement, which is impugned in the captioned writ petition, is clearly in contravention of the law laid down by the Co-ordinate Bench.

¶32

6. Per contra , the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2, however, to justify the endorsement contends that the sites admittedly being a residential sites in the residential layout, the petitioner cannot be permitted to construct a commercial complex.

¶33

7. Heard learned counsel on record and learned AGA. Perused the records.

¶34

5 -

¶35

NC: 2025:KHC:26342 WP No. 16150 of 2025

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

8. This Court deems it fit to cull out para Nos.10, 22 and 23 of the reported judgment for ready reference and the same is extracted, which reads as under;

¶38

"10. The short questions that would arise in the above matter is - Whether the land coming within the designation, demarcation and classification of commercial axes under the Development Control Regulations if used for a commercial purpose would amount to change of land use coming within the ambit of the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.3600/2011 and whether on that ground, the respondent No.2 - MUDA could have rejected the application for plan sanction submitted by the petitioner?

¶39

22. In the present case as afore observed, the designation of the property as commercial axes and usage being permitted in terms of C-3 would not come within the ambit of Para 42 of the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court but would be covered by the Master Plan already issued by the State and the Development Control Regulations formulated thereunder.

¶40

23. In that view of the matter, I answer the above point by holding that the sanction of plan submitted by the petitioner would not come within the purview of Para 42 of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court and as such, the petitioner would be entitled for sanction of the said plan in terms of Regulation 6.6 of the Development Control Regulations."

¶41

6 -

¶42

NC: 2025:KHC:26342 WP No. 16150 of 2025

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

9. On a careful perusal of the law laid down by the Co-ordinate Bench in the reported decision, which is produced at Annexure–N, and upon meticulous examination of the material placed on record, this Court finds considerable force in the petitioner’s contention. The records clearly disclose that the site in question, which has been allotted to the petitioner’s brother, falls within the area designated as "commercial axes" under the relevant planning regulations. The sale deed executed in favour of the petitioner’s brother, placed on record at Annexure–B, specifically describes the boundaries of the property, indicating that it is abutted by a 9.00-meter wide road on the western side and a 24.00-meter wide road on the southern side. This description aligns with the classification of the area as falling within the commercial axes as per the Mysore Urban Development Authority (MUDA) zoning regulations.

¶45

10. Furthermore, the relevant zoning regulations more particularly, Regulation 6.6 of the Mysore Urban

¶46

7 -

¶47

NC: 2025:KHC:26342 WP No. 16150 of 2025

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

Development Authority Zoning of Land Use and

¶50

Development Control Regulations clearly permit the construction of commercial complexes in areas falling under commercial axes. In light of the binding ratio laid down by the Co-ordinate Bench, which has categorically held that such usage does not amount to a change of land use falling within the ambit of paragraph 42 of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.3600/2011, the petitioner cannot be denied the benefit of development permission solely on the ground that the site was originally allotted for residential use.

¶51

11. The Co-ordinate Bench has conclusively held that where a site falls within the designated commercial axes, and the usage is in accordance with the applicable Development Control Regulations and the approved Master Plan, the planning authority cannot deny sanction of the plan merely by invoking paragraph 42 of the Supreme Court judgment. Therefore, applying the same legal principle to the present case, this Court is of the

¶52

8 -

¶53

NC: 2025:KHC:26342 WP No. 16150 of 2025

¶54

HC-KAR

¶55

considered view that the impugned endorsement issued by

¶56

the second respondent, as evidenced at Annexure–A, rejecting the petitioner’s request for plan sanction, is wholly unsustainable in law. The said endorsement is contrary to the applicable statutory regulations and the authoritative pronouncement of this Court and is, therefore, liable to be quashed.

¶57

12. For the foregoing reasons, this Court proceeds to pass the following;

¶58

ORDER

¶59

(i) The writ petition is allowed.

¶60

(ii) The impugned endorsement dated 17.04.2025 issued by respondent No.2, as found at Annexure–A, is hereby quashed and set aside.

¶61

(iii) Consequently, respondent No.2 is directed to consider and accord sanction for the building plan submitted by the petitioner for construction of a commercial building

¶62

9 -

¶63

NC: 2025:KHC:26342 WP No. 16150 of 2025

¶64

HC-KAR

¶65

on the petition schedule property, in accordance with law and the applicable provisions of the Mysore Urban Development Authority Zoning of Land Use and Development Control Regulations, without reference to the quashed endorsement, and expeditiously, preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶66

Sd/(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE

¶67

NBM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8

Mr.D.Purushothama v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr.D.Purushothama 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 Devaraju G Vs the State of Karnataka

Malatesh Murthy Vs the Secretary

Arumugam Mythili Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Kalegowda D S Vs Chief Excutive Officer

Sri Mruthyunjaya Vs the Commissioner Bbmp

Smt Hemalatha Vs the State of Karnataka