Disposed¶48

H S Vijayalakshmi v. Bengaluru Metropolitan Regional Development Authority

Karnataka HC17 Dec 2025WP/24324/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

BMRDA notification 16.03.2023 (No.BMRDA/ALN/CR 44/2011-2012) for intermediate ring road; refusal to release approved layout sites; Kanakapura Town Planning Authority; Harohalli Village Sy.Nos.60-61, Kanakapura Taluk; parity with W.P. No.24744/2024; KTCP Act Sections 12, 13, 14 and 17; relinquishment without compensation; mandamus; release of remaining sites directed within one month.

What did the court decide?

Respondent No.4 directed to forthwith release the remaining sites as per the layout plan approved on 15.11.2022, compliance within one month from receipt of a copy of the order. ¶48

H S Vijayalakshmi Vs Bengaluru Metropolitan Regional… — Company and Corporate | Karnataka HC (2025)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:53977 WP No. 24324 of 2024

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

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

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 24324 OF 2024 (LB-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

H.S. VIJAYALAKSHMI W/O. LATE H.N. SURYANARAYANA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS

¶9

PRADEEP KUMAR @ PRADEEP H.S. S/O LATE H.N. SURYANARAYANA AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS

¶10

BOTH ARE RESIDING AT: HAROHALLI VILLAGE, HAROHALLI TEMPLE STREET, HAROHALLI HOBLI, KANAKAPURA TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT

¶11

Digitally signed by MARKONAHALLI RAMU PRIYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

M/S. BRINDAVAN CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD. REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.63 AMRUTHNAGAR MAIN ROAD, KONANAKUNTE, BENGALURU-62 REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, S. JAGADEESH (REGISTERED UNDER COMPANIES ACT, 1956)

¶13

(BY SRI. B. RAMESH, ADVOCATE)

¶14

…PETITIONERS

¶15

AND:

¶16

BENGALURU METROPOLITAN REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY NO.1, ALI ASKER ROAD, BENGALURU-560052 REP BY ITS COMMISSIONER

¶17

STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF PUBIC WORKS

¶18

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:53977 WP No. 24324 of 2024

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001 REP. BY ITS SECRETARY

¶21

STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT M.S. BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU-560001 REP BY ITS SECRETARY

¶22

KANAKAPURA TOWN PLANNING AUTHORITY NO.469/A, SAHAKARI RESIDENTIAL LAYOUT, AGRAHARA NEW COLONY, TUNGANI POST, KANAKAPUR-562117

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI. YOGESH D. NAIK, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 AND 4;

¶25

SRI. B. BOPANNA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.2 AND 3)

¶26

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO (i) QUASH THE NOTIFICATION DATED 16.03.2023 BEARING NO.BMRDA/ALN/CR 44/2011-2012 ISSUED BY THE 1^ST RESPONDENT AUTHORITY WHICH IS PRODUCED AND MARKED AS ANNEXURE-R (ii) DIRECT THE 4^TH RESPONDENT TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATIONS DATED 25.06.2024 AND THE 24.07.2024 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER WHICH IS PRODUCED AND MARKED AS ANNEXURE-N AND P; (iii) DIRECT THE 4^TH RESPONDENT AUTHORITY BY RELEASING SITES FORMED BY THE PETITIONERS IN THE PROPERTY BEARING SY.NO.60 AND SY.NO.61 MEASURING TO AN EXTENT OF 09 ACRES 28.12 GUNTAS SITUATED HAROHALLI VILLAGE, HAROHALLI HOBLI, KANAKAPURA TALUK IN TERMS OF THE APPROVED PLAN DATED 15.11.2022 DzÉÃ±À ¸ À ASÉå: PÀAiÉÆÃ¥Áæ/J¯ïJN/18/2017-18/1784 WHICH IS PRODUCED AND MARKED AS ANNEXURE-L2.

¶27

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:53977 WP No. 24324 of 2024

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

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

¶30

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶31

ORAL ORDER

¶32

The petitioner Nos.1 and 2 have sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct respondent No.4 to consider the representations dated 25.06.2024 and 24.07.2024 and to direct respondent No.4 to release sites formed by them in the property bearing Survey Nos.60 and 61 of Harohalli Village, Harohalli Hobli, Kanakapura Taluk as per the approved plan dated 15.11.2022.

¶33

The sum and substance of the case of the petitioners is that petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are the owners of the aforesaid land and had sought sanction of a layout plan, which was accorded by respondent No.4 on 15.11.2022. Subsequently, respondent No.4 issued a notification dated 16.03.2023 for formation of an intermediate ring road (IRR). On the basis of the said notification, respondent No.4 refused to release the sites formed by the petitioners on the ground that some of the sites lay within the proposed IRR to be formed. The petitioners submitted representations dated

¶34

¶35

NC: 2025:KHC:53977 WP No. 24324 of 2024

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

25.06.2024 and 24.07.2024 requesting the respondents to release the said sites. However, the same were not considered. The petitioners are therefore before this Court seeking the reliefs mentioned above.

¶38

The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the layout plan was sanctioned on 15.11.2022 at which point of time, there was no notification for formation of the IRR. He contends that respondent No.1 issued a notification dated 16.03.2023 proposing formation of the IRR and that respondent No.4 taking advantage of the said notification, now contends that the petitioners are required to relinquish the portion of land required for formation of the IRR. He further contends that a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.PNo.24744/2024 considered the effect of the notification dated 16.03.2023 issued by respondent No.1 and held that "This Court must opine that the BMRDA's Notification dated 16.03.2023 by itself would not bring the proposed alignment within the Master Plan or the stipulation within the Zonal Regulations, and the second respondent must ensure that these are included in the Master Plan/Zonal Regulations in compliance with Sections 12, 13 and

¶39

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:53977 WP No. 24324 of 2024

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

14 of the KTCP Act. This Court, therefore, is of the opinion that the second respondent, whose jurisdiction is circumscribed by Section 17 of the KTCP Act and Master Plan/Regulations, cannot insist on the relinquishment of the extent required for IRR without compensation. Hence the impugned endorsement dated 06.08.2024 cannot be sustained. " He therefore submits that the order passed in W.P. No.24744/2024 has attained finality and hence the petitioners are to be treated on par.

¶42

The learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 4 did not dispute the fact that in similar circumstances, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court while considering the effect of the notification dated 16.03.2023 has quashed a similar endorsement issued to similarly placed persons by the planning authority refusing to release the sites on the ground that those sites lay within the area proposed for IRR.

¶43

In that view of the matter this writ petition also deserves to be disposed off on similar line as in W.P. No.24744/2024.

¶44

¶45

NC: 2025:KHC:53977 WP No. 24324 of 2024

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

Accordingly this writ petition is disposed off on

¶48

same lines as in W.P. No.24744/2024. The respondent No.4 is directed to forthwith release the remaining sites as per the layout plan approved on 15.11.2022. This shall be complied within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy

¶49

of this order.

¶50

Sd/-

¶51

(R. NATARAJ) JUDGE

¶52

¶53

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 0

H S Vijayalakshmi v. Bengaluru Metropolitan Regional Development Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

H S Vijayalakshmi v. Bengaluru Metropolitan Regional Development Authority

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

M/S. M. v. and Vajra Developers Vs the Commissioner

Sarvodaya Education Society Vs State of Karnataka

Smt. R Jayalakshmi Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt K S Jayalakshmi Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt.Lathamani C T Vs State of Karnataka

Sri B Sami Ulla Khan Vs the Commissioner