Disposed¶32

Sri Bimaaiah N M v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC12 Dec 2025WP/37353/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Change of land use application dated 02.05.2025; Madikeri Urban Development Authority; survey No.50/42, Ibnivalwadi Village, Madikeri Taluk; master plan residential-to-commercial conversion; mandamus under Articles 226/227; direction to forward documents to State Government within 30 days; State decision within 2 months; disposed of; single judge R. Nataraj; Karnataka HC, 12.12.2025; LB-RES.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of with directions: respondent No.2 (Madikeri Urban Development Authority) to consider the petitioner's application dated 02.05.2025 for change of land use and forward all required documents and information to respondent No.1 (State Government) within 30 days of receipt of the order; respondent No.1 to take a decision within two months thereafter. ¶32

Sri Bimaaiah N M Vs the State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶32

Issue for consideration

Whether respondent No.2 should be directed, by way of mandamus, to consider the petitioner's application dated 02.05.2025 for change of land use and forward it with documents to respondent No.1.

¶24

Court's answer

The writ petition is disposed of directing respondent No.2 to consider the petitioner's application dated 02.05.2025 and forward all the required documents and information to respondent No.1 within 30 days from receipt of a copy of the order.

¶32

Ratio / Principle

Respondent No.1 (State Government) shall take a decision on the forwarded application within a period of two months thereafter.

¶32

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition (mandamus) under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India: the petitioner, owner of land bearing survey No.50/42 measuring 3 acres 30 cents at Ibnivalwadi Village, Madikeri Taluk, earmarked for residential use in the master plan, sought a direction to respondent No.2 (Madikeri Urban Development Authority) to consider his application dated 02.05.2025 for change of land use, which had lain unattended for about seven months. The Additional Government Advocate submitted that change of land use is accorded by the State Government once respondent No.2 forwards the representation with documents; counsel for respondent No.2 undertook to forward the application with particulars. The Court disposed of the petition, directing respondent No.2 to consider the application and forward all required documents and information to respondent No.1 within 30 days of receipt of the order, with respondent No.1 to take a decision within two months thereafter.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:52902 WP No. 37353 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 37353 OF 2025 (LB-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI.BIMAAIAH N M S/O N S MEDAPPA, AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: AGRI, R/AT IBNIVALWADI VILLAGE, MADIKERI TQ, KODAGU DISTRICT-571201

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. VIVEKANAND V.J., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, VIKAS SOUDHA, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-01

¶13

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

¶14

THE MADIKERI URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, MADIKERI 571 201 REP BY ITS COMMISSIONER

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI.H.K.KENCHEGOWDA AGA FOR R1; SRI.NAGENDRA NAIK, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶17

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NO.2 TO CONSIDER THE APPLICATION DATED 02.05.2025 MADE BY THE PETITIONER FOR CHANGE OF LAND USE VIDE ANNEXURE-D.

¶18

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

¶19

¶20

NC: 2025:KHC:52902 WP No. 37353 of 2025

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

The petitioner has sought has sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the respondent No.2 to consider the application dated 02.05.2025 for change of land use.

¶25

The petitioner claims that he is the owner of land bearing survey No.50/42, measuring 3 acres 30 cents, situated at Ibnivalwadi Village, Madikeri Taluk, which is earmarked for residential use in the master plan. The petitioner claims that he intends to develop the property for commercial purposes and he therefore requested the respondent No.2 to grant change of land use in terms of the application dated 02.05.2025. He claims that even after 7 months the respondent No.2 has not taken any steps.

¶26

The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the above submissions.

¶27

The learned Additional Government Advocate submits that change of land use is accorded by the State Government and therefore, it is for the respondent No.2 to forward the representation of the petitioner. He submits that if

¶28

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:52902 WP No. 37353 of 2025

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

the respondent No.2 forwards the representation along with the necessary documents and particulars, the State Government will take a decision.

¶31

The learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that steps would be taken to forward the application of the petitioner along with the required particulars and the documents.

¶32

In that view of matter, this writ petition is disposed off , directing respondent No.2 to consider the application of the petitioner dated 02.05.2025 and forward all the required documents and information to the respondent No.1 within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The respondent No.1 shall take a decision within a period of two months thereafter.

¶33

Sd/(R. NATARAJ) JUDGE

¶34

BKN/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 43

Sri Bimaaiah N M v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Bimaaiah N M 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Durgi Enterprises Vs the Additional District Election Officer

M/S Biopharma Laboratories Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Pavithra Ravikumar Vs State of Karnataka

Mr.Sri Narasaiah Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr. Nanje Gowda. S. M. Vs the Panchayat Development Officer

Mr. Zubear Ahmed Sharief Vs the Commissioner