Disposed¶47

Smt. Putta Ningamma v. the Commissioner

Karnataka HC5 Feb 2026WP/3207/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

WP No. 3207 of 2026 (LB-RES), Karnataka HC, Suraj Govindaraj J., 05.02.2026; Articles 226 and 227 Constitution of India; writ of certiorari; MUDA provisional sanction plan Order No. MUDA/TP/VI NA/78/2024 dated 10.02.2025; residential lay out in Survey No.97 and Survey No.98/1, Madaragalli village, Varuna Hobli, Mysore Taluk; petitioners' land in Survey No.73/1 shown as road; respondents: Commissioner, Mysore Urban Development Authority and K.C. Subbaiah; petition disposed of with liberty to seek injunction in appeal to be filed; no observations on merits; advocates J. Sathishkumar and T.P. Vivekananda.

What did the court decide?

Liberty reserved to the petitioners to file necessary applications for injunction and like reliefs in the appeal to be filed; no adjudication on the merits; notice to respondent No.2 dispensed with. ¶47

Smt. Putta Ningamma Vs the Commissioner — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Liberty reserved to the petitioners to file necessary applications for injunction and like reliefs in the appeal to be filed; no adjudication on the merits; notice to respondent No.2 dispensed with.

¶47

Issue for consideration

Whether the provisional sanction plan dated 10.02.2025 (Order No. MUDA/TP/VI NA/78/2024) permitting the second respondent to form a residential lay out in Survey No.97 and Survey No.98/1, Madaragalli village, is liable to be quashed on the ground that the lay out shows the petitioners' land in Survey No.73/1 as access road.

¶44

Court's answer

The Court expressly recorded that it had made no observations on the merits of the matter, leaving the challenge to the provisional sanction plan undecided.

¶48

Ratio / Principle

Liberty was reserved to the petitioners to file necessary applications for injunction and like reliefs in the appeal to be filed by them, and on that basis the petition stands disposed of.

¶47

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru (Single Bench, Suraj Govindaraj, J.), Writ Petition No. 3207 of 2026 (LB-RES), decided 05.02.2026 under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Nine resident-petitioners of Koodanahalli Grama, Mysore Taluk, sought quashing of the provisional sanction plan vide Order No. MUDA/TP/VI NA/78/2024 dated 10.02.2025, issued by the first respondent (Commissioner, Mysore Urban Development Authority), permitting the second respondent to form a residential lay out in Survey No.97 (3 acres 08 guntas) and Survey No.98/1 (3 acres 36 guntas) at Madaragalli village, Varuna Hobli, Mysore Taluk, on the grievance that the lay out was formed by showing the petitioners' land in Survey No.73/1 as road. At the preliminary hearing stage, petitioners' counsel sought liberty to pursue injunction and like applications in an appeal to be filed; the Court disposed of the petition reserving such liberty and expressly recorded that no observations were made on the merits. The order carries no precedent value on the legality of the sanction plan.

¶1

1 - NC: 2026:KHC:6711 WP No. 3207 of 2026

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 3207 OF 2026 (LB-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SMT. PUTTA NINGAMMA W/O. LATE DYAVAIAH, AGED ABOUT 84 YEARS,

¶10

SRI. RANGASWAMY K., S/O. LATE KEMPARAJU, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,

¶11

SRI. VENKATESHA K. S/O. LATE KEMPARAJU, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,

¶12

SMT. MANCHAMMA W/O. LATE KEMPARAJU, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,

¶13

Digitally signed by SHWETHA RAGHAVENDRA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

SMT. PUTTAMMANNI W/O. LATE KALAIAH, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,

¶15

SRI. DEVANNA S/O. LATE DEVAIAH, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,

¶16

SRI. PUTTA SWAMY S/O. LATE DYAVAIAH, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,

¶17

SMT. LAKSHMI W/O. R.A.LAKSHMANA SWAMY, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,

¶18

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:6711 WP No. 3207 of 2026

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

SMT. MANGALA, W/O. SURESHA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,

¶21

ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF KOODANAHALLI GRAMA, SOMESHWARAPURA POST, VARUNA HOBLI, MYSORE TALUK, MYSORE-570 010.

¶22

…PETITIONERS

¶23

(BY SRI. J. SATHISHKUMAR, ADVOCATE)

¶24

AND:

¶25

THE COMMISSIONER MYSORE URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, J.L.B.ROAD, MYSORE-570 010.

¶26

SRI.K.C.SUBBAIAH, S/O K.C. CAVERIAPPA, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, R/AT NO.22-H, RAMAKRISHNA NAGARA, DATTAGAHALLI EXTENSION, MYSURU-570 010.

¶27

…RESPONDENTS

¶28

(BY SRI. T.P. VIVEKANANDA, ADVOCATE FOR R1)

¶29

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO: (A) CALL FOR RECORDS LEADING ISSUANCE OF THE PROVISIONAL SANCTION PLAN VIDE ORDER NO.MUDA/TP/VI NA/78/2024 DATED 10.02.2025, PERMITTING THE SECOND RESPONDENT TO FORM A RESIDENTIAL LAY OUT IN SURVEY NO.97 MEASURING 3 ACRES 08 GUNTAS AND 3 ACRES 36 GUNTAS IN SURVEY NO.98/1 BOTH LAND SITUATE AT MADARAGALLI VILLAGE, VARUNA HOBLI, MYSORE TALUK VIDE ANNEXURE-A; (B) QUASH THE PROVISIONAL SANCTION PLAN VIDE ORDER NO.MUDA/TP/VI NA/78/2024 DATED 10.02.2025 PERMITTING THE SECOND RESPONDENT TO FORM LAY OUT IN SURVEY

¶30

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:6711 WP No. 3207 of 2026

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

NO.97 MEASURING 3 ACRES 08 GUNTAS AND 3 ACRES 36 GUNTAS IN SURVEY NO.98/1 BOTH LAND SITUATE AT MADARAGALLI VILLAGE, VARUNA HOBLI, MYSORE TALUK VIDE ANNEXURE-A, SINCE LAY OUT IS FORMED BY SHOWING PETITIONERS LAND IN SURVEY NO.73/1 AS ROAD TO REACH THE LAY OUT FORMED IN SURVEY NO.97 AND 98/1; AND ETC.

¶33

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

¶34

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

¶35

ORAL ORDER

¶36

Sri T.P.Vivekananda, learned counsel, is directed to accept notice for respondent No.1.

¶37

Notice to respondent No.2 is dispensed with in view of the proposed order to be passed.

¶38

Petitioners are before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:

¶39

“a. Call for records leading issuance of the provisional sanction plan vide order No. MUDA/TP/VI NA/78/2024 dated 10.02.2025, permitting the second respondent to form a residential lay out in survey No.97 measuring 3 acres 08 guntas & 3 acres 36 guntas in survey No.98/1 both land situate at Madaragalli village, Varuna Hobli, Mysore Taluk vide ANNEXURE-A.

¶40

b. Issue writ of certiorari and Quash the provisional sanction plan vide order No. MUDA/TP/VI NA/78/2024 dated 10.02.2025 permitting the second respondent to form lay out in survey No.97

¶41

¶42

NC: 2026:KHC:6711 WP No. 3207 of 2026

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

measuring 3 acres 08 guntas & 3 acres 36 guntas in survey No.98/1 both land situate at Madaragalli village, Varuna Hobli, Mysore Taluk vide ANNEXURE-A, since lay out is formed by showing petitioners land in survey No.73/1 as road to reach the lay out formed in survey No.97 & 98/1.

¶45

c. Direct the second respondent to remove the portion of land in survey No.73/1 from the lay out plan shown as road to reach the residential lay out provisionally approved by the first respondent on 10.02.2025.

¶46

d. To pass/grant such other order/s or relief/s as this Hon'ble Court deems fit under the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity.”

¶47

After arguing for some time, learned counsel for the petitioners seeks for liberty to file necessary applications for injunction and the like reliefs in the appeal to be filed by the petitioner. Reserving such liberty to the petitioners, petition stands disposed of.

¶48

It is made clear that this Court has not made any observations on the merits of the matter.

¶49

SD/(SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE

¶50

TL/List No.: 2 Sl No.: 9

Smt. Putta Ningamma v. the Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Putta Ningamma 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

Sri. a Rajkumar @ Babu Vs the Commissioner

Iti Limited Vs the Executive Engineer

Smt Nagamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri.Bhaskar S Vs State of Karnataka

Arun Kumar K S Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Malepati Vasu Babu Vs the State of Karnataka