Dismissed¶38

Sri Channabasaveshwara Swamy Enterprises v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC23 Mar 2026WP/16320/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition (Articles 226/227, Constitution of India) against Tumkur City Corporation's rejection (order dated 27/02/2024, TMK-LBPAS-20920/23-24/BP, Annexure-F) of approval of a plan for a commercial building; dismissed as withdrawn after a fresh khata was issued for 2048.51 sq.m following relinquishment of portions of the property for road and conservancy purposes; liberty reserved to file a fresh building-plan sanction application, to be considered in accordance with law; no adjudication on merits; bench: M.I. Arun J.; decision date 23-03-2026.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to approach respondent No.2 for sanction of a building plan; upon a fresh application being made, respondent No.2 will consider the same in accordance with law. ¶38

Sri Channabasaveshwara Swamy Enterprises Vs the… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Liberty to approach respondent No.2 for sanction of a building plan; upon a fresh application being made, respondent No.2 will consider the same in accordance with law.

¶38

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 27/02/2024 of respondent No.2 rejecting the petitioners' request for approval of a plan for construction of a commercial building ought to be set aside.

¶27

Ratio / Principle

The writ petition stands dismissed as withdrawn; the petitioners are at liberty to approach respondent No.2 for sanction of a building plan, and upon such application being made, respondent No.2 will consider the same in accordance with law. No adjudication on the merits of the rejection of the building plan.

¶40

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru (M.I. Arun J.), W.P. No. 16320 of 2024 (LB-RES), decided 23-03-2026. The petitioners, a registered partnership firm and its partner, filed this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 27/02/2024 (TMK-LBPAS-20920/23-24/BP, Annexure-F) of the 2nd respondent, Tumkur City Corporation, rejecting their request to approve a plan for construction of a commercial building. During the course of the proceedings, the petitioners made a fresh application for khata after relinquishing certain portions of the property towards road and conservancy purposes, and a fresh khata was issued in respect of 2048.51 square meters of land. On that basis, learned counsel for the petitioners sought permission to withdraw the writ petition reserving liberty to make a fresh application for sanction of a building plan; learned counsel for respondent No.2 undertook that any such application would be considered in accordance with law. Held: the writ petition stands dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to the petitioners to approach respondent No.2 for sanction of a building plan, to be considered in accordance with law. The merits of the rejection were not adjudicated; the order carries no precedent value on the substantive planning questions.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:16262 WP No. 16320 of 2024

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF MARCH, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT PETITION NO.16320 OF 2024 (LB-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI CHANNABASAVESHWARA SWAMY ENTERPRISES REG PARTNERSHIP UDAYARAVI, II MAIN ROAD, VINAYAKANAGARA, TUMKUR - 572 101 REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER.

¶9

SRI G C VIPIN CHANDRA S/O LATE SRI G H CHANDRASHEKARAIAH AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/AT VINAYAKANAGARA, TUMKUR - 572 102.

¶10

Digitally signed by GEETHA P G Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

(BY SRI. VIKYATH B., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

…PETITIONERS

¶14

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY, URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, ROOM NO.434, VIKASA SOUDHA, BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶15

TUMKUR CITY CORPORATION REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER, TOWNHALL, BHAGWAN MAHAVEER RD,

¶16

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:16262 WP No. 16320 of 2024

HC-KAR

GANDHI NAGAR,

TUMAKURU - 572 102.

TUMKUR URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (TUDA) TOWN HALL, TUMKUR CITY-562 102 REP. BY TUDA COMMISSIONER.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. BOPANNA BELLIAPPA, AGA., FOR R.1; SRI. SUBRAMANYA R., ADVOCATE FOR R.2; SRI. T.P. VIVEKANANDA, ADVOCATE FOR R.3.)

¶23

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NO.2 TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN TMK-LBPAS-20920/23-24/BP DATED 27/02/2024 AT ANNEXURE-F, ETC.

¶24

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶25

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN

¶26

ORAL ORDER

¶27

The request of the petitioners to approve a plan for construction of a commercial building has been rejected by respondent no.2. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have filed the present writ petition.

¶28

¶29

NC: 2026:KHC:16262 WP No. 16320 of 2024

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

During the course of the proceedings, it is submitted by the counsel for the petitioners that they made a fresh application for issuance of a fresh khata, taking into consideration the relinquishment of certain portions of the property made by the petitioners towards road and conservancy purposes. It is further submitted that a fresh khata is issued in favour of the petitioners in respect of 2048.51 square meters of land.

¶32

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that, in the light of the issuance of a fresh khata, the petitioners may be permitted to withdraw the writ petition, reserving liberty to make a fresh application to respondent No. 2 for sanction of a building plan.

¶33

Learned counsel for respondent no.2 submits that if such

¶34

an application is made, the same will be considered in accordance with law and a decision will be taken on the same thereafter. Hence the following:-

¶35

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:16262 WP No. 16320 of 2024

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

ORDER

¶38

i. The writ petition stands dismissed as

¶39

withdrawn.

¶40

ii. It is needless to state that the petitioners are at liberty to approach respondent no.2 for sanction of a building plan, and upon such application being made, respondent no. 2 will consider the same in accordance with law.

¶41

Sd/(M.I.ARUN) JUDGE

¶42

VMB

¶43

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 27

Sri Channabasaveshwara Swamy Enterprises v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Channabasaveshwara Swamy Enterprises v. the 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nagarajegowda @ Annaiah Vs the Secretary

Anmol Education Association Vs State of Karnataka

Miracle Adhouz Vs Chief Officer

Sri Hridayadithya Kalkur K Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr Joshy Iype Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Dinesh B v Vs the State Government of Karnataka