Disposed¶39

Arvind Kumar Parekh v. the Commissioner

Karnataka HC2 Apr 2026WP/12105/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bangalore Development Authority; BDA NOC; writ of mandamus; Articles 226 and 227; representation dated 18.04.2023 Annexure-E; Survey No.89/6; 13 guntas; Nagavara Village Kasaba Hobli Bangalore North Taluk; final acquisition notification dated 18.06.2014 Urban Development Department; preliminary notification; absolute sale deed title; sanction of plan; disposed within 12 weeks; Karnataka High Court Bengaluru; Justice S Sunil Dutt Yadav; WP No. 12105 of 2023 (BDA); NC: 2026:KHC:17971.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the respondent-BDA to dispose of the petitioner's application (Annexure-E representation dated 18.04.2023) after examining it as per law within a period of 12 weeks; petitioner to furnish any clarifications called for in the interregnum. ¶39

Arvind Kumar Parekh Vs the Commissioner — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶39

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondent-BDA should be directed, by way of a writ of mandamus under Articles 226 and 227, to consider/dispose of the petitioner's representation dated 18.04.2023 (Annexure-E) seeking an NOC confirming that Survey No.89/6, Nagavara Village, is not subject-matter of acquisition.

¶14

Court's answer

In light of the respondent-BDA's stand that the representation would be considered as per law after verifying records, the Court disposed of the petition, recording the respondent's stand and directing the respondent to dispose of the application after examining it as per law within a period of 12 weeks.

¶33

Key takeaways

If the petitioner is called upon to furnish any clarifications in the interregnum to enable the authority to take an expeditious decision, the petitioner is to co-operate.obiter¶38

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India by Arvind Kumar Parekh seeking a writ of mandamus directing the Commissioner, Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) to consider his representation dated 18.04.2023 (Annexure-E) requesting issuance of a No-Objection Certificate (NOC) for property bearing Survey No.89/6, measuring 13 guntas, at Nagavara Village, Kasaba Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk. The representation asserts ownership derived through an absolute sale deed, regular payment of taxes and enjoyment of property rights, and that per the final acquisition notification issued by the Urban Development Department dated 18.06.2014 the property is not a subject matter of acquisition, the petitioner's survey number being absent from the final notification although the properties formed part of the preliminary notification; the petitioner requires the NOC and sanction of plan to develop the property. Counsel for BDA submitted the representation would be considered as per law after verifying necessary records. Recording that stand, the Court disposed of the petition and directed the respondent to dispose of the application after examining it as per law within 12 weeks, with the petitioner to co-operate if clarifications are called for.

¶1

1 - NC: 2026:KHC:17971 WP No. 12105 of 2023

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF APRIL, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION NO. 12105 OF 2023 (BDA)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

ARVIND KUMAR PAREKH S/O LATE MANGILAL, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/AT NO.20, 3^RD CROSS, GANDHINAGAR, BENGALURU-560009.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. NAYANA TARA B.G., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by VIJAYA P Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

THE COMMISSIONER, THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, T CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST, BANGALORE-560020.

¶14

…RESPONDENT (BY SRI. LAKSHMEESH RAO, ADVOCATE) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT TO CONSIDER THE APPLICATION / REPRESENTATION DATED 18/04/2023 OF THE PETITIONER VIDE ANNEXURE-E BY ISSUING A WRIT OF MANDAMUS.

¶15

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

¶16

¶17

NC: 2026:KHC:17971 WP No. 12105 of 2023

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV

¶20

ORAL ORDER

¶21

The present petition has been filed seeking for a direction against the respondent-Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) to consider the representation dated 18.04.2023 at Annexure-E.

¶22

A perusal of the said representation at Annexure-E would reveal that the petitioner has made a request to the respondent - BDA to issue No-Objection Certificate (NOC) for property bearing Survey No.89/6, measuring 13 guntas, situated at Nagavara Village, Kasaba Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk. It is averred in the said representation that the petitioner is the owner of the property having derived title through an absolute sale deed executed by the vendors.

¶23

It is further submitted that the petitioner is

¶24

paying taxes and enjoying all property rights. It is specifically asserted that in terms of final notification

¶25

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:17971 WP No. 12105 of 2023

¶26

HC-KAR

¶27

relating to acquisition issued by the Urban Development Department dated 18.06.2014, the property is not a subject matter of acquisition. It is also asserted that though the properties had been a part of the preliminary notification, the final notification of survey number of the property belonging to the petitioner is absent.

¶28

It is submitted that the petitioner intends to

¶29

develop the property and for such purpose, obtaining of sanction of plan and NOC from the BDA regarding property not being the subject matter of acquisition, is required.

¶30

Sri. Lakshmeesh Rao, learned counsel

¶31

appearing for the respondent - BDA submits that the said representation at Annexure-E will be considered as per law after verifying necessary records.

¶32

In light of the said stand of the respondent -

¶33

BDA that they would consider the representation of the petitioner, the present petition is disposed of, recording the stand of the respondent and directing the respondent

¶34

¶35

NC: 2026:KHC:17971 WP No. 12105 of 2023

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

to dispose of the application after examining it as per law within a period of 12 weeks from today.

¶38

Needless to state, if the petitioner is called upon to furnish any clarifications in the interregnum to enable the authority to take an expeditious decision, the petitioner to co-operate.

¶39

Accordingly, petition is disposed of .

¶40

SD/(S SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE

¶41

MCR

Arvind Kumar Parekh v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arvind Kumar Parekh 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

Ami Enterprises Vs the Commercial Tax Officer

Shri Mohammed Kamran Vs the Principal Commissioner of Commercial Tax

R S Papers Vs Income Tax Officer

M/S Rootfi Technologies Private Limited Vs the Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax

Sri. Chandrashekhara Bali Vs State of Karnataka

M/S Pathways Marketing and Consulting Group Vs Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Tax