Sri M Yallappa Vs the Commissioner

1(c)(b) SRI. ROHIT S/O LATE VENKATESH AGED ABOUT 15 YEARS, (REP BY HIS NATURAL GUARDIAN BROTHER 1(c)(a), MOTHER ALSO PASSED AWAY ON 02.10.2021) BOTH ARE R/AT NO.3, 1^ST CROSS, 1^ST MAIN, BYRASANDRA, JAYANAGAR 1^ST BLOCK EAST, BENGALURU-560011.

¶13

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:2792 WP No. 47337 of 2014

¶14

1(d) SMT. SUSHEELA D/O LATE YALLAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,

¶15

1(e) SRI. GOVINDARAJU, S/O LATE YELLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,

¶16

1(f) SRI. SHANTARAJU S/O LATE YELLAPPA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, P.NO.1(a) TO (f) ARE R/AT NO.4, 1^ST BLOCK, JAYANAGAR EAST, BYRASANDRA, BANGALORE-560011.

¶17

SRI. Y. NARAYANA S/O M. YALLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, 3. SRI Y. VENKATESH, S/O M. YALLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, SINCE DEAD RESPONDENT NOS.4 TO 10 ARE TREATED AS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES OF DECEASED RESPONDENT NO.3 VIDE ORDER DATED 10.01.2019

¶18

SRI Y. GOVINDARAJU, S/O M. YALLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,

¶19

SRI Y. SHANTHARAJU, S/O M YALLAPPA, AGED ABOT 35 YEARS, THE PETITIONER NO.1 TO 5 ARE R/AT NO.4, 1^ST BLOCK, JAYANAGAR EAST, BYRASANDRA, BANGALORE-560011.

¶20

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:2792 WP No. 47337 of 2014

¶21

THE PETITIONER NO.1 TO 5 ARE REP.BY THEIR GPA HOLDER M/S. INNOVATIVE CONSTRUCTIONS, H.N.300/1K, 16^TH CROSS, KAGGADASAPURA, BANGALORE-500093. REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, SRI. K. MALLA REDDY, H.N.300/1K, 16^TH CROSS, KAGGADASAPURA, BANGALORE-560093.

¶22

…PETITIONERS (BY SRI. R.SHIVACHARAN AND SMT. NIVEDITHA SHETTY, ADVOCATES)

¶23

AND:

¶24

THE COMMISSIONER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, SANKEY ROAD, BANGALORE-50 0020.

¶25

TOWN PLANNING MEMBER, BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, SANKEY ROAD, BANGALORE-560 020.

¶26

SMT. MUNI LAKSHMAMMA W/O LATE MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS,

¶27

SRI. M. VIJAY KUMAR S/O LATE M. MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, SINCE DEAD BY LRS

¶28

4(a) SMT. NAGAMMA W/O LATE VIJAYKUMAR AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,

¶29

4(b) SMT. MAMATHA D/O LATE VIJAYKUMAR

¶30

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:2792 WP No. 47337 of 2014

¶31

AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,

¶32

4(c) SMT. NETHRA D/O LATE VIJAYKUMAR AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,

¶33

4(d) SMT. RAVATHI D/O LATE VIJAYKUMAR AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,

¶34

RESPONDENT NO.4(a) TO 4(d) ARE R/AT NO.3, OLD NO.54, 1^ST CROSS, 1^ST MAIN, BYRASANDRA, JAYANAGARA 1^ST E BLOCK, BENGALURU-560011.

¶35

SRI. M. SRINIVAS S/O LATE M. MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,

¶36

SRI. M. SHANKARA S/O LATE M. MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,

¶37

SRI. M. NATARAJ S/O LATE M. MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,

¶38

SMT. M. MANJULA D/O LATE M. MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,

¶39

SMT. M. GOWRI KUMARI D/O LATE M. MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,

¶40

SMT. M. SUMITHRA D/O LATE M. MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,

¶41

RESPONDENT NO.3 TO 10 ARE RESIDING AT NO.3, OLD NO.54, 1^ST CROSS, 1^ST MAIN,

¶42

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:2792 WP No. 47337 of 2014

¶43

BYRASANDRA, JAYANAGAR 1 BLOCK EAST, BANGALORE-560011.

¶44

…RESPONDENTS

¶45

(BY SRI. B.S.SACHIN, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 AND 2; SRI. M. PRABHAKAR, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.3 TO 10; VIDE ORDER DATED 06.01.2025, SERVICE OF NOTICE TO RESPONDENT NOS.4(b) AND 4(c) IS HELD SUFFICIENT; RESPONDENT NOS.4(a), (d) AND (e) ARE SERVED)

¶46

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 10.09.2014 BEARING NO.BDA/NUS/BLP-41/201213/2220/2014-15 VIDE ANNEXURE-L ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT AUTHORITIES IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONERS REFUSING TO APPROVAL OF PLAN AND LICENSE TO PUT UP CONSTRUCTION OF MULTI-STOREYED APARTMENT BUILDINGS IN THE LAND BEARING SY.NO.56 MEASURING 2 ACRES 32 GUNTAS SITUATED AT CHOODASANDRA VILLAGE, SARJAPURA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE DISTRICT BY ALLOWING THE ABOVE WRIT PETITION AND FURTHER BE PLEASED TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT AUTHORITIES TO APPROVE THE PLAN AND ISSUE LICENCE IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONERS PERMITTING THEM TO PUT UP CONSTRUCTION OVER THE LAND BEARING SY.NO.56 MEASURING 2 ACRES 32 GUNTAS SITUATED AT CHOODASANDRA VILLAGE, SARJAPURA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE DISTRICT BY ALLOWING THE ABOVE WRIT PETITION.

¶47

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

¶48

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL

¶49

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:2792 WP No. 47337 of 2014

¶50

ORAL ORDER

¶51

The petitioners have sought for the following reliefs:

¶52

"(c) Issue writ of certiorari by quashing endorsement dated 10.09.2014 Annexure - 'L' issued by the respondent authorities in favour of the petitioners refusing to approval of plan and licence to put up construction of multistoreyed apartment buildings in the land bearing Sy.No.56 measuring 2 acres 32 guntas situated at Choodasandra village, Sarjapura Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bangalore District by allowing the above writ petition and further be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to approve the plan and issue licence in favour of the petitioners permitting them to put up construction over the land bearing Sy.No.56 measuring 2 acres 32 guntas situated at Choodasandra Village, Sarjapura Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bangalore District by allowing the above writ petition.

¶53

(d) To grant such other order/s as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice."

¶54

The facts in brief are that the land bearing Sy.No.56 measuring 2 acres 32 guntas, situated at Choodasandra village, Sarjapura Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bangalore District originally belonged to one S.K. Gopal Iyenger, who in turn sold the same in favour of Munigurappa in terms of a deed of sale dated 01.02.1964. Subsequently, Munigurappa sold the said land in favour of petitioner No.1 in terms of registered deed of sale dated 25.04.1969. Thereafter, name of the petitioner No.1 was

¶55

7 -

¶56

NC: 2025:KHC:2792 WP No. 47337 of 2014

¶57

entered in revenue records. It is contended that one Smt. Munilakshmamma and her children who are being the heirs of younger brother of petitioner No.1 filed a suit in O.S.No.531/2007 in respect of property bearing Sy.No.65/2 situated at Choodasandra village, Sarjapura Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bangalore District which is not in any way connected the land in question. The petitioners entered appearance and filed written statement in the said suit. Thereafter, an amended application was filed in O.S.No.531/2007 to include the land in question along with other properties.

¶58

Since the land in question is situated within the BMRD limits the petitioners obtained change of land usage from agricultural to non-agricultural residential purposes and have entered into a joint development agreement dated 22.08.2012 with one M/s. Innovative Constructions. Subsequently, the petitioners through the said developer approached the respondent-authorities seeking sanction of plan and licence to put up construction of multistoried residential apartments. In fact even before obtaining change of land usage from agricultural to non-agricultural residential purpose, the petitioner No.1 had approached the respondent No.1-BDA

¶59

8 -

¶60

NC: 2025:KHC:2792 WP No. 47337 of 2014

¶61

seeking clearance with regard to lifting sensitive zone as demarcated by respondent No.1-BDA. It is contended that subsequent to entering into joint development agreement, the plaintiffs in O.S.No.531/2007 have filed an application to implead the developer and the same is pending consideration. Thereafter, one Sri. M.Nataraj seems to have approached the respondent No.1-BDA and has given objection by making false claim over the land in question and has also filed a complaint before the Lokayuktha. It is contended that merely because of the aforesaid complaint lodged by said Sri.M.Nataraj and because of the pendency of the aforesaid suit in O.S.No.531/2007 the respondent No.1-BDA had refused to consider the request of the petitioners for approval of plan and has issued an endorsement dated 10.09.2014 as per Annexure -L. Hence, the petitioners are before this Court.

¶62

The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the requisition made by the petitioners for issuance of sanction plan has been declined, in view of the dispute that is pending consideration between the petitioners and the private respondents in O.S.No.531/2007.

¶63

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:2792 WP No. 47337 of 2014

¶64

On a query by this Court, regarding the inaction on the part of respondent No.1-BDA in issuing sanction plan, merely because the pendency of the suit and requiring them to specifically point out the provision of law, in that regard learned counsel for respondent No.1-BDA fairly submits that there is no specific provision as such. However, he submits that in order to avoid further multiplicity of proceedings, the respondent No.1 - BDA has issued the impugned endorsement.

¶65

After arguing the matter for some time, the counsel for the petitioners as well as counsel for the private respondents make submissions in unison that if respondent No.1-BDA is directed to issue sanction plan with a further direction to the petitioners shall not change the nature of the land until disposal of the suit in O.S.No.531/2007 pending between the parties, interest of all the parties would be served.

¶66

In response, learned counsel for the respondent No.1-BDA submits that the respondent No.1-BDA would not have any objection to comply with the direction to be issued as sought for.

¶67

10 -

¶68

NC: 2025:KHC:2792 WP No. 47337 of 2014

¶69

The joint submission of learned counsel for the

¶70

petitioners and the learned counsel for the private respondents are taken on record.

¶71

In view of the above, the following:

¶72

ORDER

¶73

(i) The petition is disposed off by directing the respondent No.1 - BDA to issue sanction plan as sought for by the petitioners within an outer limit of 03 months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, subject to petitioners satisfying and complying with the terms, conditions and other requirement of law for the purpose of issuing the sanction plan.

¶74

(ii) The petitioners shall not change the nature of the property or put the sanction plan that may be issued as directed above into use until disposal of the suit in O.S.No.531/2007.

¶75

11 - NC: 2025:KHC:2792 WP No. 47337 of 2014

¶76

(iii) It is made clear that the petitioners will be at liberty to seek for extension of time limit, if any that may be imposed while issuing sanction plan, in the event of any delay in disposal of litigation pending

¶77

between the parties.

¶78

Sd/(M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE

¶79

HJ

¶80

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24

Sri M Yallappa v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri M Yallappa v. the Commissioner

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

Sri P R Seshadri @ Palghat Ramanathan Seshadri Vs State of Karnataka

Alwyn Patrao Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Mahima Dasegowda Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Jagadish Reddy Vs State of Karnataka

Smt. Sunandamma Vs Bengaluru Development Authority

N.Sampath Kumar Vs the State of Karnataka