Disposed¶49

The Commissioner v. Sri Jagadeesh Reddy

Karnataka HC16 Feb 2026WA/894/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

FAR; Floor Area Ratio; BBMP; Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike; Endorsement dated 01.10.2020; permissible FAR 1.75; claimed FAR 2.25; road width 11.89 metres; road width 12 metres; revised Master Plan 2015; Survey No.10/2A; Amblipura Village; Varthuru Hobli; Bengaluru East Taluk; W.P. No.2496/2021; WA No.894 of 2024; Karnataka High Court Act S.4; Jagadeesh Reddy; Monesh Kumar K B; Sampath A; writ appeal disposed; interim applications disposed.

What did the court decide?

Taking into account the respondents' report dated 11.08.2025, the width of the road in front of the petitioner's property is 11.89 metres and the permissible FAR is 1.75 meters. ¶41

The Commissioner Vs Sri Jagadeesh Reddy — Karnataka HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:9318-DB WA No. 894 of 2024

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH WRIT APPEAL NO. 894 OF 2024 (LB-BMP)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

THE COMMISSIONER BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE

¶11

THE DIRECTOR OF TOWN PLANNING HEAD OFFICE BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE

¶12

THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF TOWN PLANNING HEAD OFFICE BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE

¶13

Digitally signed by VASANTHA KUMARY B K Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

ALL OFFICES ARE SITUATED AT BBMP OFFICES, N R SQUARE, BENGALURU 560002

¶15

…APPELLANTS

¶16

(BY SRI. MONESH KUMAR K B., ADVOCATE)

¶17

AND:

¶18

SRI JAGADEESH REDDY S/O LATE NARAYAN REDDY AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS R/AT BELLANDUR VILLAGE VARTHUR HOBLI, BENGALURU EAST TALUK BANGALORE

¶19

…RESPONDENT

¶20

(BY SRI. SAMPATH A., ADVOCATE)

¶21

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:9318-DB WA No. 894 of 2024

¶22

HC-KAR

¶23

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN WP NO.2496/2021 AND SET-ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER PASSED IN WP NO.2496/2021 DATED 13/12/2023, AND BE FURTHER PLEASED TO DISMISS THE WRIT PETITION, ETC.

¶24

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶25

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH

¶26

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶27

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH)

¶28

The present intra Court appeal has been filed

¶29

impugning the judgment and order dated 13.12.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.2496/2021 (LB-BMP), which was filed by the respondent herein.

¶30

Parties are referred to as per their ranking before the writ Court for the sake of convenience.

¶31

The petitioner filed the writ petition impugning the Endorsement dated 01.10.2020 issued by the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (for short 'the BBMP' ), whereby the Floor Area Ratio (for short 'the FAR' ) of 1.75

¶32

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:9318-DB WA No. 894 of 2024

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

meters for his building to be constructed on the land bearing Survey No.10/2A (Old No.8 and 5) measuring 1 acre 12 guntas situated at Amblipura Village, Mahadevapura Division, Varthuru Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk, came to be challenged.

¶35

The case of the petitioner before the writ Court was that in front of the petitioner's property the width of the road is 12.11 to 12.24 metres at different locations and therefore, the petitioner would be entitled for FAR of 2.25 meters.

¶36

The learned Single Judge directed the Respondent/

¶37

Authority to consider the application of the petitioner afresh for sanction of FAR considering the width of the road in front of the petitioner's property to be 12 metres.

¶38

We called for a report from the respondents in respect of the width of the road in front of the petitioner's property. The report has been filed in the Court on 20.08.2025 along with a memo dated 19.08.2025. The

¶39

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:9318-DB WA No. 894 of 2024

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

report dated 11.08.2025 states that width of the road in front of the petitioner's property is found to be 11.89 metres and the permissible FAR is 1.75 meters.

¶42

Even as per the revised Master Plan 2015 the FAR available for a building to be constructed where the width of the road is up to 12 meters is 1.75 meters.

¶43

Therefore, even if we consider the direction issued by the learned Single Judge to consider the width of the road as 12, the petitioner will be entitled only for FAR of 1.75 meters. The BBMP has already agreed to sanction 1.75 FAR for the building of the petitioner to be constructed on his land mentioned herein above.

¶44

In view of the report submitted and considering the revised Master Plan 2015, we are of the view that the petitioner would be entitled only to 1.75 FAR and not above 1.75 FAR as contented by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶45

¶46

NC: 2026:KHC:9318-DB WA No. 894 of 2024

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48