Allowed

Sri L M Jagadish v. the Additional Chief Secretary

Karnataka HC18 Dec 2025WP/37919/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court of Karnataka set aside an order refusing to consider a land use change application. The Court held that mere identification of land for a future layout cannot refuse consideration without statutory restriction, directing the authority to consider the application within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

Impugned communication setting aside; direction to respondents to consider the petitioner's application for change of land use from agricultural to residential purpose within eight weeks.

Sri L M Jagadish Vs the Additional Chief Secretary — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2025)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:54204 WP No. 37919 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA WRIT PETITION NO. 37919 OF 2025 (BDA)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI L M JAGADISH S/O. MUNISHAMAIAH L.A. AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/O. LINGANAHALLI, HESARAGHATTA HOBLI, YELAHANKA TALUK, BENGALURU 560 089.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. RAMESH K.R., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶14

BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, KUMARA PARK WEST, T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD, BENGALURU- 560 020 REPTD. BY ITS COMMISSIONER,

¶15

THE TOWN PLANNING MEMBER, BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD, BENGALURU- 560 020.

¶16

…RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. RASHMI RAO, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. VASANTHA, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3)

¶17

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:54204 WP No. 37919 of 2025

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE OF WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTION, QUASHING THE IMPUGNED COMMUNICATION DATED 30.10.2025 BEARING NO.BEMAAPRA/ NAYOSA/CLU-441/2868/2025-26 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER AT ANNEXURE-F, IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO TAKING DECISION TO NOT TO CONSIDER THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER AT ANNEXURE-D IN RESPECT OF THE LAND BEARING SY.NO. 23/4 OF MUTHUGADAHALLI VILLAGE, TO AN EXTENT OF 36 1/2 GUNTAS IS CONCERNED, ETC.

¶20

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

¶21

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

Learned HCGP accepts notice for respondent No.1.

¶24

Sri. Vasantha, learned counsel accepts notice for respondent Nos.2 and 3.

¶25

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned AGA for respondent No.1 and learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3.

¶26

The petitioner has approached this Court seeking

¶27

to quash the impugned communication dated 30.10.2025

¶28

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:54204 WP No. 37919 of 2025

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

issued by the third respondent to the petitioner, insofar as

¶31

it relates to land bearing Survey No.23/4 of Muthugadahalli Village, to an extent of 36½ guntas and for consequential direction to consider the petitioner’s application dated 13.03.2025, seeking change of land use from agricultural to residential purpose.

¶32

It is the case of the petitioner that he is the absolute owner of the agricultural land bearing Survey No.23/4 to the extent of 36½ guntas and the land bearing Survey No.28/1, to an extent of 02 acres 17 guntas of Muthugadahalli Village, Hesaraghatta Hobli, Yelahanka Taluk, Bengaluru. The petitioner submitted an application seeking change of land use of the said lands from agricultural to residential purpose. While the request in respect of Sy. No.28/1 was considered, the request pertaining to Sy.No.23/4 was declined by respondent No.3, on the sole ground that the land is identified for further extension of "Dr. Shivaram Karanth Layout" .

¶33

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:54204 WP No. 37919 of 2025

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned communication is arbitrary and illegal, in as much as the authority has declined to consider the petitioner’s application without reference to any statutory prohibition and merely on the ground of a proposed future layout.

¶36

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents 2 and 3 submits that the land in question has been identified for further extension of "Dr. Shivaram Karanth Layout" and therefore the petitioner’s request for change of land use could not be acceded to.

¶37

It is not in dispute that the petitioner is the owner of the land in question and sought for conversion of land use in accordance with law. The impugned communication discloses that the sole reason for refusing to consider the application is that the land is identified for future extension of "Dr. Shivaram Karanth Layout" . No statutory/legal prohibition is pointed out in the impugned communication.

¶38

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:54204 WP No. 37919 of 2025

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

It is a settled principle that an owner seeking

¶41

change of land is entitled to have his application considered strictly in accordance with the governing statutory provisions. Mere identification of land for a proposed layout, without initiation or completion of acquisition proceedings or any statutory restriction, cannot by itself be a valid ground to refuse consideration of an application for change of land use. In the absence of any legal impediment, the impugned communication cannot be sustained.

¶42

Accordingly, this Court pass the following:

¶43

ORDER

¶44

(i) The Writ Petition is allowed ;

¶45

(ii) The impugned Communication dated

¶46

30.10.2025 issued by respondent No.3 at Annexure F, insofar as it relates to Survey No.23/4, measuring 36½ guntas is concerned, is hereby set aside.

¶47

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:54204 WP No. 37919 of 2025

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

(iii) The respondents are directed to

¶50

consider the petitioner's representation/ application dated 13.03.2025 (Annexure D) and pass appropriate orders granting permission for change of land use from agricultural purpose to residential use, in accordance with law, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order.

¶51

Sd/-

¶52

_____________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶53

BMV*

¶54

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17

Sri L M Jagadish v. the Additional Chief Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri L M Jagadish v. the Additional Chief Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri S a Kiran Kumar Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr. Berger Douglas Otteran Vs the State of Karnataka

Rajeev Chavan Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt.R.Muthulakshmi Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt.Rashmi Vasudeva Reddy Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Sunil K Vs State of Karnataka