Dismissed¶107

Ishwar Chandra Mudegowdar v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC25 Nov 2025WP/5580/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

civic amenity site; commercial area; Revised Master Plan 2015; Sadashivanagar BDA complex re-development; concession agreement dated 22-03-2018; consortium MFAR Developers, MFAR Constructions, KK Builders, Add Realty; delay and laches (7 years); Article 226; Article 226/227 Constitution; Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act 1961; Bangalore Development Act 1976 Sections 16, 18, 32; Karnataka Transparency in Public Procurements (KTPP) Act; layout plan binding land use; Vinayak House Building Cooperative Society v. State of Karnataka (2021) 14 SCC 409; writ petitions dismissed; interim orders dissolved.

What did the court decide?

Both petitions dismissed; interim order(s) of any kind subsisting dissolved; pending applications disposed. ¶107

Ishwar Chandra Mudegowdar Vs State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Both petitions dismissed; interim order(s) of any kind subsisting dissolved; pending applications disposed.

¶107

Issue for consideration

Whether the subject site (Sadashivanagar BDA complex) is a civic amenity site as per the original layout/1977 plan, or a commercial area as per the Revised Master Plan 2015, and whether construction of a complex thereon is impermissible. +2 more

¶78

Court's answer

The Revised Master Plan 2015 clearly indicates that the area which the petitioners contend to be a civic amenity site was never a civic amenity site; it is a commercial area, and the BDA did not construct a commercial complex in a civic amenity site — the commercial complex stood on land reserved for commercial purpose for over 36 years, carried into RMP 2015.

¶83

Ratio / Principle

Apart from the said 1977 document (of 45 years vintage, since redone under permissible power in drawing up the Master Plan 2015), there is no other document produced by the petitioners demonstrating that the site was at any time declared a civic amenity site in any plan.

¶88

Key takeaways

The challenge suffers from gross delay: the concession agreement was entered into in 2018, and the residents for the first time represented only on 11-03-2025, about 7 years later; the Association's approach is fundamentally flawed.ratio¶86
Applying Vinayak House Building Cooperative Society Limited v. State of Karnataka ((2021) 14 SCC 409), once the layout plan approved by the Competent Authority shows an area as civic amenity or commercial, the authority is bound by it and change of land use is not permitted; here the subject property has always been shown as commercial in the plan and used as a commercial complex, and what is now done is re-development of the existing complex, whose questioning as contrary to residents' welfare is ununderstandable.ratio¶103

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bengaluru (Sadashivanagar): BDA entered into a concession agreement dated 22-03-2018 with respondents 3–6 (a consortium) for re-development of the nearly 40-year-old Sadashivanagar BDA commercial complex. The Residents Welfare Association and two resident individuals challenged the agreement and BDA's communications (dated 07/02/2024 and 17/01/2025) permitting commencement of construction, contending that the site (measuring 969.6 sq. mts.) was reserved as a civic amenity site when the layout was formed in 1969, as evidenced by a BDA resolution/plan dated 13-07-1977 furnished to Vishvarama Hotels Limited. Held, dismissing both petitions: (i) the Revised Master Plan 2015 clearly shows the area as a commercial area and it was never a civic amenity site in the governing plan; the BDA complex had stood there since 1982 and the present work is mere re-development of an existing complex; (ii) apart from the 45-year-old 1977 document, no other document declares the site a civic amenity site in any plan; (iii) the challenge is belated — the first representation came only on 11-03-2025, about 7 years after the agreement; (iv) relying on Vinayak House Building Cooperative Society Limited v. State of Karnataka (2021) 14 SCC 409, an approving authority is bound by the classification in the approved layout plan, and the property has always been shown and used as commercial; (v) there is no violation of law warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to stop the on-going construction. Petitions dismissed; interim orders dissolved; pending applications disposed.

¶1

¶2

Reserved on : 25.10.2025 Pronounced on : 25.11.2025

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 25^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA

¶7

WRIT PETITION No.5580 OF 2025 (BDA)

¶8

C/W

¶9

WRIT PETITION No.33555 OF 2024 (BDA)

¶10

IN WRIT PETITION No.5580 OF 2025

¶11

BETWEEN:

¶12

1 . ISHWAR CHANDRA MUDEGOWDAR AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS 27, 1^ST CROSS, 9^TH MAIN ROAD,

¶13

SADASHIVANAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 080.

¶14

2 . CHERUKURU VISHAL NAIDU AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS B3,9^TH MAIN ROAD, SADASHIVANAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 080.

¶15

... PETITIONERS

¶16

(BY SRI ANIRUDH ANAND, ADVOCATE)

¶17

¶18

AND:

¶19

1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶20

2 . BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY REPRESENTED BY COMMISSIONER T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 032.

¶21

3 . MFAR DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 2013 REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, LAVELLE ROAD, ASHOK NAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶22

4 . MFAR CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 2013 REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, LAVELLE ROAD, ASHOK NAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶23

5 . M/S. KK BUILDERS REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 2013 REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, PERAVOOR, KANNUR DISTRICT, KERALA – 670 673.

¶24

6 . ADD REALTY LIMITED REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 2013 REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, THE ICON, NO.8, 5^TH FLOOR, 80 FT. MAIN ROAD, INDIRANAGAR, HAL II STAGE,

¶25

¶26

BENGALURU – 560 075.

¶27

7 . BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER, BBMP HEAD OFFICE COMPLEX, HUDSON CIRCLE, N.R. SQUARE, BENGALURU – 560 002.

¶28

... RESPONDENTS

¶29

(BY SRI K.SHASHIKIRAN SHETTY, ADVOCATE GENERAL A/W MS.RACHEL RAJU ALICE, ADVOCATE AND SRI B.S.GURUSWAMY, AGA FOR R-1; SRI AJAY KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R-2; SRI B.L.SANJEEV, ADVOCATE FOR R-7)

¶30

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO I. DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT AUTHORITIES TO DEMOLISH THE ILLEGAL CONSTRUCTION AT SITE NO. 6, 9^TH MAIN ROAD, RMV EXTENSION, SADASHIVANAGAR, BANGALORE – 560080; II. DIRECTIONS TO THE RESPONDENT AUTHORITIES TO TAKE ACTION AGAINST 3^RD , 4^TH , 5^TH AND 6^TH RESPONDENTS FOR CARRYING OUT ILLEGAL CONSTRUCTION AT SITE NO. 6, 9^TH MAIN ROAD, RMV EXTENSION, SADASHIVANAGAR, BANGALORE – 560 080; III. QUASH THE LETTER OF THE R2 BEARING NO.BDA EE.Markets/6PPP/2023-24 DATED 07/02/2024 VIDE ANNX-F; IV. QUASH THE LETTER OF THE R2 BEARING NO. BDA/KaAa/MaVi/512/2024-25 DATED 17/01/2025 VIDE ANNEXURE-K.

¶31

¶32

IN WRIT PETITION No.33555 OF 2024

¶33

BETWEEN:

¶34

SADASHIVANAGAR RESIDENTS WELFARE ASSOCIATION, A SOCIETY REGISTERED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF KARNATAKA REGISTRATION ACT, 1960 HAVING ITS OFFICE AT POST BOX NO. 8048 SADASHIVANAGAR POST OFFICE 8^TH MAIN, SADASHIVANAGAR BENGALURU – 560 080 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶35

... PETITIONER

¶36

(BY SRI UDAYA HOLLA SR.ADVOCATE A/W SRI PRAVEEN H.P., ADVOCATE)

¶37

AND:

¶38

1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED HEREIN BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT ’VIDHANA SOUDHA’ BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶39

2 . BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY T.CHOWDAIAH ROAD BENGALURU – 560 032 REPRESENTED BY COMMISSIONER.

¶40

3 . MFAR DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED A COMPANY LIMITED BY SHARES INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 LAVELLE ROAD, ASHOK NAGAR BENGALURU – 560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR.

¶41

¶42

4 . MFAR CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED A COMPANY LIMITED BY SHARES INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 LAVELLE ROAD, ASHOK NAGAR BENGALURU – 560 001. REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR.

¶43

5 . M/S. K.K. BUILDERS A PARTNERSHIP FIRM HAVING ITS PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS AT PERAVOOR, KANNUR DISTRICT KERALA – 670 673 REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR.

¶44

6 . ADD REALTY LTD., INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 HAVING REGISTERED AT: THE ICON, NO. 8, 5^TH FLOOR 80 FT. MAIN ROAD, INDIRANAGAR, HAL II STAGE BENGALURU – 560 075 REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR.

¶45

7 . BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE N.R.SQUARE, BENGALURU – 560 002 REPRESENTED BY COMMISSIONER.

¶46

8 . BANGALORE METROPOLITAN PLANNING COMMITTEE REGISTERED UNDER KARNATAKA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ACT BBMP HEAD OFFICE COMPLEX HUDSON CIRCLE, N.R.SQUARE BENGALURU – 560 002 THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN.

¶47

... RESPONDENTS

¶48

(BY SRI K.SHASHIKIRAN SHETTY, ADVOCATE GENERAL A/W

¶49

¶50

MS.RACHEL RAJU ALICE, ADVOCATE AND SRI B.S.GURUSWAMY, AGA FOR R-1; SRI DHYAN CHINNAPPA, SR.ADVOCATE A/W SRI K.KRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR R-2; R-3 TO R-6 ARE SERVED; SRI K.B.MONESH KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R-7 AND R-8; SRI R.SUBRAMANYA, ADVOCATE FOR IMPLEADING APPLICANT IN I.A. NO.1/2025)

¶51

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO 1) QUASH/SET ASIDE THE CONCESSION AGREEMENT DATED 22.03.2018 ENTERED BETWEEN RESPONDENT NO.2 AND RESPONDENTS NO.3-6 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A; 2) CALLING UPON RESPONDENT NO.2 TO REDEVELOP THE BDA COMPLEX IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE KTCP ACT AND FOLLOWING DUE PROCESS OF LAW; ALTERNATIVELY ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER SIMILAR WRIT CALLING UPON RESPONDENT NO.2 TO UTILIZE THE SUBJECT CA SITE SITUATED IN SADASHIVANAGARA AS A PARK OR A PLAYGROUND WHICH WILL BE MORE BENEFICIAL FOR THE RESIDENTS OF SADASHIVANAGAR, BENGALURU AND THE PUBLIC IN GENERAL.

¶52

THESE WRIT PETITIONS HAVING HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 25.10.2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

¶53

¶54

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

¶55

CAV ORDER

¶56

The petitioner, in Writ Petition No.33555 of 2024, said to be Sadashivanagar Residents Welfare Association, is at the doors of this Court calling in question a Concession Agreement dated 22-03-2018 entered into between the 2^nd respondent/Bangalore Development Authority (‘BDA’) and respondent Nos.3 to 6 for the purpose of construction of a complex. The companion petition is by two individuals named to be residents of Sadashivanagar and they call in question a communication from the hands of the BDA which permits commencement of construction in the subject property. Both the petitions seek consequential direction by issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondents 3 to 6 to stop construction that is now undertaken.

¶57

Heard Sri Udaya Holla, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 33555 of 2024; Sri Anirudh Anand, learned counsel appearing for petitioners in Writ Petition No.5580 of 2025; Sri K. Shashikiran Shetty, learned Advocate

¶58

¶59

General appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri Dhyan Chinnappa, learned senior counsel appearing for respondent No.2 in both the petitions; Sri K.B.Monesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for respondents 7 and 8, Sri R.Subramanya, learned counsel appearing for impleading applicants in W.P.No.33555 of 2024; Sri Ajay Kumar, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 and Sri B.L.Sanjeev, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.7 in W.P.No.5580 of 2024.

¶60

In the light of the issue being common, both these petitions are taken up together and considered by this common order. For the sake of brevity, facts obtaining in Writ Petition No.33555 of 2024 would be narrated.

¶61

Facts, in brief, germane are as follows: -

¶62

4.1. The petitioner is a Resident Welfare Association said to

¶63

have been registered under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act with an object of providing more livable, clean and healthy environment to the residents of Sadashivanagar area. The 1^st respondent/Government through the Department of Urban

¶64

¶65

Development enters into an agreement with a consortium for the purpose of construction of a commercial complex in Sadashivanagar which was earlier standing as BDA complex. It is the averment in the petition that Sadashivanagar BDA complex forms part of Sadashivanagar. At the time of formation of the said layout, one of the sites measuring 969.6 sq. mts. was reserved as a civic amenity site. For the convenience of locals, the BDA had set up a complex consisting of small shops for selling of groceries and also set up photocopying units in the said civic amenity site. The BDA complex was functioning as a facility catering to the daily needs of the residents of the neighbourhood from the year 1982. Since the complex was close to 40 years old and began to de-generate into dilapidated condition, a tender notification is issued for the construction of a complex by demolishing the old and bringing up a new one.

¶66

4.2. Pursuant to the notification, respondents 3 to 6 participate in the said tender and emerge as successful bidders for the purpose of construction of the said complex. On the said bidders emerging as successful, BDA enters into a concession

¶67

¶68

agreement on 22-03-2018. The purpose of agreement was putting up of a complex in place of the old complex with modern amenities that would help the residents of the area. The Residents Welfare Association did not challenge it immediately. Close to 7 years after the BDA entering into a concession agreement, a representation is submitted contending that the BDA has permitted construction of a complex in a civic amenity site and therefore, it should be stalled. The ears of the BDA having gone unheeded to the request of these petitioners, the petitioners are at the doors of this Court calling in question the concession agreement, with a consequential direction to stop re-development of BDA complex and utilizing the said site as a civic amenity site only. The companion petition, though by individuals, runs the same stream of challenge, but to a communication between the Departments permitting construction in accordance with law. Therefore, facts therein need not bear narration separately.

¶69

The learned senior counsel Sri Udaya Holla appearing for the petitioners would vehemently contend that the subject site was reserved as a civic amenity site when Sadashivanagar layout was

¶70

¶71

formed in the year 1969. Since then it has been a civic amenity site and it is trite law that in a civic amenity site there cannot be a complex coming up. It is for usage of the citizens and needs of the citizens like park, playground or any other amenities for the citizens. The learned senior counsel would further submit that though there was a complex earlier in the name and style of Sadashivanagar BDA complex, the present construction is for altogether a new building, which undoubtedly violates the plan that formed RMS II Stage way back in 1969.

¶72

Per contra, the learned Advocate General appearing for the 1^st respondent and learned senior counsel Sri Dhyan Chinnappa, appearing for the 2^nd respondent would all in unison contend that no doubt in the year 1969 the area was shown to be a civic amenity site. Today in the Master Plan 2015 it is shown as a commercial area. It was in fact treated as a commercial area since ages. Therefore, the BDA itself had put up a complex. It is not as if it was only a tea shop or photocopying unit. It was a full pledged complex. Since the complex was very old and was in a dilapidated condition, tender was called and in the tender, the consortium has emerged as successful and a concession agreement is entered into between

¶73

¶74

the consortium and the BDA, 7 years ago. Not being aggrieved then, the petitioners are projecting to be aggrieved now, only for extraneous reasons.

¶75

The learned senior counsel Sri Dhyan Chinnappa appearing for the BDA would particularly answer that construction is not permitted contrary to the Karnataka Transparency in Public Procurements Act, ( ‘KTPP’ Act). The learned senior counsel submits that development of a layout in terms of a scheme of such layout would not require a notification under the KTTP Act for every construction that the area would be taking up. It is part of the development of the area under the scheme. He would further contend that in the case at hand, every nuance has been followed. Tender is notified, consortium has emerged a successful bidder, contract is awarded to the consortium and construction has begun. He seeks dismissal of the petitions.

¶76

I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned senior counsel and also other learned counsel and have perused the material on record.

¶77

¶78

The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The genesis of the issue is, whether the area is shown to be a civic amenity site when a layout plan was approved for extension of Raj Mahal Vilas Extension. The petitioners place heavy reliance upon the said document. The document is not the one that is rendered by the BDA at the time of formation of the layout, but a document that was rendered in favour of Vishvarama Hotels Limited. Nonetheless since reliance is placed on it, I deem it appropriate to notice the

¶79

same. It reads as follows:

¶80

¶81

¶82

The learned senior counsel Sri Udaya Holla appearing for the petitioners submit that it is this civic amenity site that is now put to use. The BDA resolution in terms of what is noted hereinabove is dated 13-07-1977. It is an admitted fact that after the emergence of the said document the subject area did not remain as an area i.e., civic amenity site. The BDA itself re-developed the area into a BDA complex. Existence of BDA complex since 1982 in the said place is not in dispute. It is the averment in the statement of objections that the State thought it fit to re-develop the BDA complex by demolishing the old and bringing up a new one. The issue now is, whether the plan that was furnished to one Vishvaram Hotels was the plan that remained in subsistence throughout, alas it is not.

¶83

A revised master plan 2015 of the area is in place. The plan is appended to the statement of objections by the BDA. A perusal at the revised master plan would clearly indicate that the area which the petitioners are now contending to be a civic amenity site was never a civic amenity site. It is a commercial area then and commercial area in the revised master plan. The BDA did not

¶84

¶85

construct commercial complex in the civic amenity site. It was the commercial complex that stood the test of time for over 36 years. It was undoubtedly constructed in an area reserved for commercial purpose. The same is carried over in the RMP 2015. The layout plan is appended as Annexure-R1, which clearly indicates that it is a commercial area and declared a commercial area at every point in time. Owing to the fact that the BDA complex was in a dilapidated condition, the BDA calls for a tender. Respondents 3 to 6, as a consortium, participate in the tender and emerge successful. A concession agreement is entered into between the BDA and the consortium for the purpose of re-development of the area into a new complex. The agreement is entered into in the year 2018. There was a lull since then. Though the residents of the area were completely aware of the concession agreement being entered into for the purpose of re-development of the site, did not choose to point a finger at such re-development as it was a re-development of a old complex into a new complex again for the benefit of citizens.

¶86

On 11-03-2025, for the first time, after about 7 years, a representation comes up seeking the BDA to stop construction

¶87

¶88

contending that it was an unauthorized resumption of construction. Apart from gross delay in approaching the Court, the approach of the Residents Welfare Association is fundamentally flawed. They seek to rely upon a document of 45 years vintage which has now been tinkered and re-done in terms of permissible power under the provisions of law at the hands of the BDA in drawing up a master plan 2015. It is not a civic amenity site in the master plan that now governs the development of the area. It cannot be said that the BDA should hold its hands on the score that at 40 years vintage in the year 1977 the area while developing was shown to be a civic amenity site. Apart from the said document, there is no other document produced by the petitioners, to demonstrate that it was at any time declared as civic amenity site, in any plan, for them to now point a finger at what is now happening.

¶89

As observed hereinabove, it was always a Sadashivanagar BDA complex and what is now being done is re-development of the said complex. The Residents Welfare Association should not stonewall development of the area for the benefit of the citizens or the residents of the area on any consideration extraneous or any

¶90

¶91

motive ulterior. However, if the construction is taking place in gross violation of law, it is then the residents are entitled to point a finger. There is no violation of law in the case at hand, much less a violation for this Court to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to step in and stop the on-going construction.

¶92

Now it becomes apposite to refer to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of VINAYAK HOUSE BUILDING COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED v. STATE OF KARNATAKA¹ wherein it is held as follows:

¶93

“…. …. ….

¶94

30. It is also necessary to emphasise here the need to have planned development of the city and the importance of planning schemes and the ill effects of denotification of the land from the approved scheme/plan. Town planning schemes are made for the immediate need of the community. Town planning is meant for planned development of certain local areas in order to make utilities and facilities available to the general public. Planned development of the city is a sine qua non for its health and growth, given the rapid increase in population of the city on account of influx of thousands of people from other parts of the country.

¶95

31. The Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961 (for short “the Planning Act”) and the Bangalore Development

¶96

1 (2021) 14 SCC 409

¶97

¶98

Act, 1976 (for short “the BDA Act”) play an important role in the planned development of the city of Bangalore. The Planning Act was enacted by the State Legislature for the regulation of planned growth of land use and development and for executing town planning schemes in the State of Karnataka. The Planning Act has created a planning authority which has been given power to check, survey and locate the area for development by declaring it as a planning area. It also provides for preparation of master plan for development of the city after carrying out the survey of the area within its jurisdiction. The zoning regulations are made from time to time, classifying the land use in the planning area.

¶99

32. The State Legislature has enacted the BDA Act for the establishment of a development authority for the development of city of Bangalore and areas adjacent thereto and for matters connected therewith. The State Government has constituted Bangalore Development Authority to effectuate the purpose of the BDA Act. This authority is a planning authority for the city of Bangalore. The main object of the BDA Act is planned development of the city of Bangalore and to check haphazard and irregular growth of the city. BDA is the sole authority which draws the schemes for formation layouts within the Bangalore metropolitan area. This Act envisages development of two types of layouts. The first is formation of a layout by BDA itself. For this purpose, BDA has to draw a development scheme. The particulars to be provided in the development scheme are enumerated in Section 16 of BDA Act. The development scheme made by BDA provides for acquisition of the land, laying and relaying of all or any land including the construction and reconstruction of buildings, formation and alteration of the streets, provision for drainage, water supply, electricity, reservation of not less than 15% of the area of the layout for public purpose and playground and an additional area of not less than 10% of the total area of the layout for civic amenities. Section 18 of the BDA Act provides for sanction of the scheme submitted by BDA. After acquisition, the State Government vests the acquired land with BDA for formation of a layout strictly in accordance with the sanctioned scheme.

¶100

¶101

33. The second type of layout under the BDA Act is a private layout. Section 32 of the BDA Act provides for formation of private layouts. If any person intends to form an extension or a layout, he has to make a written application with a plan to the Commissioner, BDA under sub-section (2) of Section 32. The said plan has to contain laying out sites of the area, reservation of land for open spaces, the intended level, direction and width of the street, street alignment and the building line and the proposed sites abutting streets, the arrangement for levelling, paving, metalling, flagging, channelling, sewering, draining, conserving and lighting the streets and for adequate drinking water supply. A private layout cannot be formed without the approval of the layout plan by the Commissioner, BDA and such layout has to be formed strictly in accordance with the approved plan. While forming the layout, BDA or a private individual or a society, as the case may be, cannot deviate from the sanctioned scheme or the approved layout plan.”

¶102

(Emphasis supplied)

¶103

The Apex Court holds that once the layout plan approved by the Competent Authority shows certain area to be civic amenity or certain area to be commercial, it would be bound by it and not permit a change of land use. In the case at hand, the subject property is always shown as commercial in the plan and is being used as commercial complex from days immemorial. As it is now 40 years that it is being put into use as BDA complex, it is now being re-developed to bring a state of the art complex. It is ununderstandable as to how it would be contrary to the welfare of

¶104

¶105

the residents of Sadashivanagar for them to question the demolition and re-construction of an already existing complex into a modern complex.

¶106

The companion petition W.P.No.5580 of 2025, which also questions the very action, should also meet the fate of its companion petition W.P.No.33555 of 2024 and the fate of the companion petition is dismissal, on account of it being devoid of merit.

¶107

For the aforesaid reasons, the petitions stand dismissed.

¶108

Interim order of any kind subsisting today, shall stand dissolved.

¶109

Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed.

¶110

Sd/(M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE

¶111

bkp CT:MJ

Ishwar Chandra Mudegowdar v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ishwar Chandra Mudegowdar v. 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. Hatelsab Vs State Bank of India

Sri. Veereshkumar Mallappa Topalakatti S/O Mallappa Topalakatti Vs the Government of Karnataka

Shri. Laxmi Vividoddesha Primary Vs the Government of Karnataka

Smt Soumya W/O. Late Suresh Rao Vs Smt Ratnakumari W/O. S. Baburao

Sri H P Ramesh Vs State of Karnataka

M/S Jdv Holdings Private Limited Vs State of Karnataka