R Rajanna Vs State of Karnataka

SRI. P PREETHISH AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS S/O LATE M PRAKASH, REP. HIS GPA HOLDER SMT. SWARANALATHA AGED BOUT 63 YEARS R/AT NO. 122, YEMALURU VILLAGE BANGALORE -560037.

¶33

SMT. SHILPAKALA P @ SHILPA PRAKASH AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS D/O LATE M PRAKASH R/AT NO. 122, YEMALUR VILLAGE BANGALORE -560037.

¶34

SRI. P SANDEEP AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS S/O LATE M PRAKASH R/AT NO. 122 YEMALUR VILLAGE BANGALORE -560037.

¶35

SRI. M JAGADEESH AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS S/O LATE B MUNISWAMY RESIDING AT NO. 951/1 21^ST MAIN, BANASHANKARI 2^ND STAGE, BANGALORE -560070.

¶36

SRI. M PURUSHOTHAM AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS S/O LATE B MUNISWAMY RESIDING AT NO. 122 YAMALUR VILLAGE BANGALORE -560037.

¶37

SRI. P KISHORE AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS S/O M PURUSHOTHAM RESIDING AT NO. 122

¶38

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:28872 WP No. 21962 of 2023

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

YAMALUR VILLAGE BANGALORE -560037.

¶41

SRI. M SURENDRA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS S/O LATE B MUNISWAMY RESIDING AT 105, GURUKRUPA 18^TH CROSS, 8^TH MAIN MALLESHWARAM BANGALORE-560055.

¶42

SRI. S ANISH AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS S/O M SURENDRA RESIDING AT NO. 105 GURUKRUPA, 18^TH CROSS 8^TH MAIN, MALLESHWARAM BANGALORE -560055.

¶43

SRI. M ANANTHARAMAN @ M SRINIVAS AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS S/O LATE B MUNISWAMY RESIDING AT 207, 10^TH D MAIN 1^ST BLOCK JAYANAGAR BANGALORE-560041.

¶44

SRI. DHANUSH AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS S/O M ANNATHARAMAN RESIDING AT 207, 10TH D MAIN 1^ST BLOCK, JAYANAGAR BANGALORE-560041.

¶45

MS. THANISH @ BABY LOMA @ HARSHINI SRINIVAS AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS DAUGHTER OF M ANANTHARAMA N RESIDING AT 207, 10^TH D MAIN 1^ST BLOCK JAYANAGAR BANGALORE-560041.

¶46

M/S SUBHA TWIN FOUNTAINS A REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM

¶47

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:28872 WP No. 21962 of 2023

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

HAVING OFFICE AT

¶50

NO. 17/F, 18^TH CROSS, SECTOR 3 HSR LAYOUT, BANGALORE -560 102

¶51

REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNERS SRI. CHANDRA SHEKAR GARINE AND SRI KONDA DEVAIAH.

¶52

SRI. CHANDRA SHEKAR GARINE MANAGING PARTNER OF M/S SUBHA TWIN FOUNTAINS HAVING OFFICE AT NO. 17/F, 18TH CROSS, SECTOR 3 HSR LAYOUT, BANGALORE -560 102

¶53

SRI. KONDA DEVAIAH MANAGING PARTNER OF M/S SUBHA TWIN FOUNTAINS HAVING OFFICE AT NO. 17/F, 18TH CROSS SECTOR 3, HSR LAYOUT, BANGALORE-560 102

¶54

…RESPONDENTS

¶55

(BY SRI. BOPANNA BELLIAPPA, AGA FOR R1 AND R6: SRI. PRADEEP PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. K B MOUNESH KUMAR., ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R5: SRI B C AVINASH, ADVOCATE FOR R7 TO R10, R13 TO R16, R18 & R20: SRI V RAVI PRAKASH, ADVOCATE FOR R11, R12, R17, R19, R21, R22, R23 TO R25)

¶56

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE SANCTION OF THE LICENCE AND PLAN AT ANNEXURES-A AND B NO. BBMP/CC/14595/22-23 LP NO. BBMP/ADDL DR/ JD NORTH/0030/22-23 PROJECT NO. PRJ/4161/22-23 AND DECLARE THAT THE SAME IS NON EST IN SO FAR AS IT ENCOMPASSES THE PETITIONERS PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN THE SCHEUDLE HEREUNDER. AND ETC.

¶57

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:28872 WP No. 21962 of 2023

¶58

HC-KAR

¶59

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

¶60

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

¶61

ORAL ORDER

¶62

The petitioner and the seventh to twenty second respondents are related and they own adjacent properties. The seventh to twenty second respondents have offered their property for joint development by the twenty third respondent, a Firm which is represented by the twenty fourth and the twenty fifth respondents. The petitioner is aggrieved by the building licence [ Annexure-A ] issued by the third respondent in favour of these respondents.

¶63

The petitioner contends that the seventh

¶64

to twenty second respondents’ properties measure only 7083.83 sq. mtrs but they are issued with a plan/building license for a property with an area of 9206.49 sq. mtr [ including certain portions of his

¶65

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:28872 WP No. 21962 of 2023

¶66

HC-KAR

¶67

land ]. The petitioner relies upon the notice dated 07.08.2023 issued by the office of the third respondent calling upon the aforesaid respondents to show cause why the sanctioned plan/building license must not be recalled. This Court, on 29.09.2023, has granted an interim order staying the operation of the building licence and sanction granted.

¶68

The developer and its representatives [ the

¶69

twenty third to twenty fifth respondents] have filed a memo stating that they have made fresh submissions for issuance of a new sanction plan and building licence because the earlier submissions for the plan/building license for 9206.49 sq. mtrs were a bonafide error. These respondents request for the disposal of the writ petition with liberty to them to pursue with the authorities for a fresh sanction of plan and building licence based on the relevant conversion order and the other revenue records. These respondents also seek a direction for refund of

¶70

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:28872 WP No. 21962 of 2023

¶71

HC-KAR

¶72

the licence fee and other fee that is paid for issuance

¶73

of the impugned building licence.

¶74

Sri V.Raviprakash and Sri B.C. Avinash,

¶75

the learned counsels who are on record respectively for the landowners and the Developer, make a request for disposal of the petition in terms of the memo. The learned counsels also submit that the petition could indeed be disposed of quashing the building licence but with liberty as afore stated. Sri Pradeep Patil, the learned counsel for the Greater Bengaluru Authority [ GBA ] and its officers are heard.

¶76

In the light of these circumstances/ submissions as well as the submissions of Sri P.B. Raju, the learned counsel for the petitioner, the first question would be, whether the petition must be allowed quashing the building licence and the terms upon which the building licence could be quashed, and the second is whether there must be a

¶77

9 - NC: 2026:KHC:28872 WP No. 21962 of 2023

¶78

HC-KAR

¶79

direction for refund of the building licence fee and the other charges paid by the builder for sanction of the

¶80

plan and issuance of the licence.

¶81

There is no dispute that in terms of the inter se arrangement between the landowners and the developers [ the seventh to twenty fifth respondents ] that the right is to develop a property with a sital area of 7083.83 sq. mtrs., and if this remains undisputed, the building plan and every revenue entry for any excess land must yield. There must be just orders in this regard. The first question is answered accordingly.

¶82

Insofar as the second question, this Court is of the view that the landowners/developer must file an application with the authorities once the Khata is issued confining the extent to 7083.83 sq. mtrs., for refund or setoff of the building fee and other charges that they have paid directing the authorities to consider the same subject to the

¶83

10 - NC: 2026:KHC:28872 WP No. 21962 of 2023

¶84

HC-KAR

¶85

remittances and the submissions being because of a bona fide error. In the light of the afore the following:

¶86

ORDER

¶87

The petition is allowed and the building licence [ Annexure-A ], the sanctioned plan [ Annexure-B ] and the amalgamated Khata in KTR No.62/19-20 and MR No.1/19-20, are quashed subject to the following terms:

¶88

[a] The seventh to twenty fifth respondents will be at liberty to make a fresh application for khata/amalgamated khata for an

¶89

extent measuring 7083.83 sq. mtrs calling upon the authorities

¶90

to consider the documents submitted and issue an order at

¶91

the earliest and not later than three [3] months from the date of

¶92

11 - NC: 2026:KHC:28872 WP No. 21962 of 2023

¶93

HC-KAR

¶94

receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶95

[b] These respondents are also reserved with liberty to file a representation for refund, and the authorities are called upon to consider the application for refund of the building fee and other charges paid for the sanction of the building plan and licence once there is change in khata.

¶96

{c] The authorities are directed to consider the same within next three [3] months based on whether there is bonafide error in making these submissions.

¶97

Sd/(B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

¶98

CM

R Rajanna v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R Rajanna 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Punith B R Vs the Town Municipal Council

National Assessment and Accreditation Council (Naac) Vs Dr. Priya N (M.Sc., Ph.D)

Ms Sandra Alistair Vs Greater Bengaluru Authority

Mr Chimanlal Talreja Vs Propcare Developers Private Limited

B N Sudhasingh Vs State of Karnataka

M/S Shankara Shet Towers Association Vs the State of Karnataka