Sri v K Patel Vs the Commissioner — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

Sri v K Patel Vs the Commissioner — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Respondent Nos.1 to 3 directed to restore site No.32/3 (BBMP Khatha No.176/32/3, measuring 6.10 X 12.19 meters, 2nd Block, 2nd Stage, Nagarabhavi, Bangalore) in the approved layout plan of II Stage, Nagarabhavi and to permit the petitioner to proceed with construction in accordance with the sanctioned plan dated 12.10.2010, to be completed within two years; respondents shall not disturb the construction so long as it conforms to the sanctioned plan.

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner should be permitted to proceed with construction of his house as per the sanctioned plan issued by respondent No.3 dated 12.10.2010, notwithstanding that his site was deleted from the approved layout plan on the ground that it lies within the buffer zone under RMP-2015. +2 more

Court's answer

The writ petition is allowed.

Ratio / Principle

Respondent Nos.1 to 3 are directed to restore the petitioner's site bearing No.32/3 in the approved layout plan of II Stage, Nagarabhavi and to permit him to proceed with construction over site No.32/3, BBMP Khatha No.176/32/3, measuring 6.10 X 12.19 meters, situated at 2nd Block, 2nd Stage, Nagarabhavi, Bangalore, in accordance with the sanctioned plan dated 12.10.2010, the construction to be completed within two years.

Key takeaways

The respondents shall not disturb the petitioner in putting up construction so long as the construction is in accordance with the sanctioned plan.ratio¶54-55
Proceeding on the Coordinate Bench's ruling in W.P.No.15298/2020 (quoted by counsel) and the respondent Nos.1 and 2 counsel's express concession, the Court treated the buffer limits under RMP-2015 as not applicable to the petitioner's site, which was allotted to his predecessors in 2007, prior to the finalization of RMP-2015, so that the petitioner cannot be expected to give up his site pursuant to buffer limits applied under RMP-2015.ratio¶45

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka (R. Nataraj, J.), Oral Order dated 02.07.2026 in W.P. No. 2048 of 2020 (BDA) under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India: The petitioner, V.K. Patel, purchased (sale deed dated 13.10.2009) site No.32/3, BBMP Khatha No.176/32/3, measuring 6.10 X 12.19 meters, 2nd Block, 2nd Stage, Nagarabhavi, originally allotted by the Bangalore Development Authority to Smt. Kamala Narayana (allotment letter dated 03.02.2007; sale deed dated 13.03.2007) and thereafter conveyed through Sri. C. Anand. After the BBMP-approved building plan (sanctioned plan dated 12.10.2010) and commencement of construction, respondent No.1 (BDA) deleted the site from the approved layout plan on the ground that it lay within the buffer zone under RMP-2015, and respondent No.2 directed allotment of an alternate site (Assistant Executive Engineer's order of 2013), which was never implemented. Counsel relied on a Co-ordinate Bench decision in W.P.No.15298/2020 holding that buffer zones of 50/25/15 meters under RMP-2015 apply only to drains newly identified while finalizing RMP-2015 and not to drains or layouts already in existence prior thereto; counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 did not dispute that buffer limits were not applicable when the site was allotted. Holding accordingly, the Court allowed the petition, directed respondent Nos.1 to 3 to restore site No.32/3 in the approved layout plan and to permit construction in accordance with the sanctioned plan dated 12.10.2010 (completion within two years), and made clear that the respondents shall not disturb the construction so long as it accords with the sanctioned plan.

1 -

NC: 2026:KHC:32876 WP No. 2048 of 2020

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF JULY, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 2048 OF 2020 (BDA)

BETWEEN:

SRI. V.K. PATEL S/O LATE SOBHNATH AGE 54 YEARS R/AT NO.114, 1^ST FLOOR, 5^TH CROSS, MANJUNATHNAGAR 2^ND PHASE, RAJAJINAGARA BANGALORE-560010

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. T.C. SHIVAKUMARAPPA, ADVOCATE)

AND:

Digitally signed by HEMALATHA J Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

THE COMMISSIONER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY HEAD OFFICE T.CHOWDAIAH ROAD KUMARA PARK WEST BANGALORE-560 020

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER WEST DIVISION B.D.A M.R.C.R SHOPPING COMPLEX VIJAYANAGAR BANGALORE-40

THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER BHRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE HUDSON CIRCLE BENGALURU-560 002

2 -

NC: 2026:KHC:32876 WP No. 2048 of 2020

HC-KAR

[R3 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DTD.24.10.2025

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. SRINIVAS BHAT, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2; SRI. B.L. SANJEEV, ADVOCATE FOR R3)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO PERMIT THE PETITIONER TO PROCEED WITH CONSTRUCTION OF HOUSE AS PER SANCTION PLAN ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT DATED 12.10.2010 PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-H OR DIRECTION TO COMPLY WITH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE R-2 IN CASE NO.17/2006-07 DTD.9.8.2011 PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-K.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

ORAL ORDER

The petitioner has sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the respondents to permit him to proceed with the construction of the house as per the sanctioned plan issued by the respondent No.3 dated 12.10.2010. He has also sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the respondent Nos.1 and 2 to allot an alternate site of similar size and dimensions as per the proceedings dated 10.09.2013 initiated by respondent No.1.

3 -

NC: 2026:KHC:32876 WP No. 2048 of 2020

HC-KAR

(i) The petitioner claims that a site bearing No.32/3, BBMP Khatha No.176/32/3, measuring 6.10 X 12.19 meters, situated at 2^nd Block, 2^nd Stage, Nagarabhavi, Bangalore, was allotted in favour of one Smt.Kamala Narayana vide allotment letter dated 03.02.2007 issued by the respondent No.1. Following the allotment, the respondent No.1 executed a sale deed dated 13.03.2007 conveying the aforesaid site to her.

(ii) Later, Smt.Kamala Narayana sold the site to Sri.C.Anand, in terms of a sale deed dated 26.03.2007 and the said Sri.C.Anand sold it to the petitioner in terms of a sale deed dated 13.10.2009. The petitioner claims that his name is entered in the property register and he has paid the property tax to the respondent No.3. It is contended that he submitted an application before the respondent No.3 seeking approval of a building plan and accordingly, the respondent No.3 approved the plan in the year 2011. After obtaining the plan, he sunk a borewell and started construction. However, the respondent No.1 deleted the site from the approved layout plan. The petitioner therefore made a representation for identification of the property and its boundaries by conducting a survey.

4 -

NC: 2026:KHC:32876 WP No. 2048 of 2020

HC-KAR

(iii) The respondent No.2 instead of identifying and fixing the boundaries, passed an order stating that the property of the petitioner lies within the buffer zone as per RMP-2015 and hence, directed that an alternate site would be allotted. The petitioner contends that at the time of allotment of the site, on the northern side there was a civic amenity property, which belonged to the respondent No.3, which is allotted to a hospital. He contends that from the year 2011, he has been struggling to construct a house over his property, but the hospital has constructed a multi-storied building and is running a hospital. He contended that in the year 2013, the Assistant Executive Engineer - Bangalore Development Authority passed an order to allot an alternate site to the petitioner, but no steps are taken till date by respondent No.1.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in similar circumstances, a Co-ordinate Bench of the this Court in W.P.No.15298/2020, has held as follows:

"7. The position of law is required to be clarified since several such complaints/petitions are being filed by the citizens of this city who have been declined approval of plan on the ground that certain directions are given by

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:32876 WP No. 2048 of 2020

HC-KAR

the NGT. In view of the orders passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India setting aside the directions given by the NGT, what remains is the implementation of the Zonal Regulations, RMP-2015 and subsequent revised master plan, if any has been approved and newly notified. As noticed earlier, the requirement of having a buffer zone of 50 meters, 25 meters and 15 meters should be made applicable only to Drains newly identified while finalizing the RMP-2015 and at any rate it should not be applicable to the drains that were already in existence prior to finalization of RMP-2015. If layouts are formed prior to finalization of RMP-2015, the requirement of setting apart buffer zone as contemplated in the zonal regulation of RMP-2015 is not applicable."

He therefore contends that site in question was allotted to the predecessors of the petitioner in the year 2007, that is much prior to the Revised Master Plan, 2015 (henceforth referred to as 'RMP-2015') coming into force and therefore, the buffer limits applicable under the RMP-2015 are not applicable to layouts, which were already formed prior to the finalization of RMP-2015. He therefore prays that the respondents be directed to permit the petitioner to go on with the construction as sanctioned by respondent No.3.

6 -

NC: 2026:KHC:32876 WP No. 2048 of 2020

HC-KAR

Learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 2 does not dispute the fact that when the site in question was allotted to the predecessor of the petitioner, the buffer limits was not applicable to the site in question and therefore, the petitioner cannot be expected to give up his site pursuant to the applicability following buffer limits as per RMP-2015.

In that view of the matter, the following order is

passed:

ORDER

i. This petition is allowed ;

ii. The respondent Nos.1 to 3 are directed to restore the site of the petitioner bearing No.32/3 in the approved layout plan of II stage, Nagarbhavi and permit the petitioner to go ahead with the construction over the site bearing No.32/3, BBMP Khatha No.176/32/3, measuring 6.10 X 12.19 meters, situated at 2^nd Block, 2^nd Stage, Nagarabhavi, Bangalore, in accordance with the sanctioned plan dated 12.10.2010 and complete the same within two years from today.

7 -

NC: 2026:KHC:32876 WP No. 2048 of 2020

HC-KAR

iii. It is made clear that the respondents shall not disturb the petitioner in putting up construction so

long as the construction is in accordance with the sanctioned plan.

Sd/-

(R. NATARAJ) JUDGE

BKN/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 32

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Order of respondent No.2 (Executive Engineer, BDA) recording that the petitioner's property lies within the buffer zone as per RMP-2015 and directing that an alternate site would be allotted, instead of identifying and fixing the boundaries; the site had been deleted from the approved layout plan by respondent No.1.¶35
Bangalore Development Authority (respondent No.2)
Prior proceeding
Site No.32/3 (BBMP Khatha No.176/32/3, measuring 6.10 X 12.19 meters, 2nd Block, 2nd Stage, Nagarabhavi) allotted to Smt.Kamala Narayana by respondent No.1 vide allotment letter dated 03.02.2007; sale deed dated 13.03.2007 executed conveying the site to her.¶30
Prior proceeding
Chain of conveyance: Smt.Kamala Narayana sold the site to Sri.C.Anand (sale deed dated 26.03.2007), who sold it to the petitioner (sale deed dated 13.10.2009); petitioner's name entered in property register and property tax paid to respondent No.3.¶31
Prior proceeding
Petitioner applied to respondent No.3 for approval of a building plan; plan approved in the year 2011; petitioner sank a borewell and started construction.¶31
Prior proceeding
Respondent No.1 deleted the petitioner's site from the approved layout plan.¶31
Prior proceeding
Petitioner made a representation for identification of the property and its boundaries by conducting a survey.¶31
Prior proceeding
Sanctioned building plan issued by respondent No.3 dated 12.10.2010 (Annexure-H), per which the petitioner seeks leave to construct.¶23
Prior proceeding
Order passed by respondent No.2 in Case No.17/2006-07 dated 9.8.2011 (Annexure-K), compliance with which is also sought in the petition.¶23
Prior proceeding
In the year 2013, the Assistant Executive Engineer - Bangalore Development Authority passed an order to allot an alternate site to the petitioner, but no steps were taken till date by respondent No.1; petitioner also sought mandamus for allotment of an alternate site per proceedings dated 10.09.2013 initiated by respondent No.1.¶35
Prior proceeding
Third respondent (Chief Commissioner, Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike) impleaded in the writ petition vide order dated 24.10.2025.¶20