Vsc Properties Private Limited Vs State of Karnataka

VSC PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED (CIN:U45201KA2007PTC043382) A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER COMPANIES ACT, 1956, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT, NO.13, OLD NO.370, 16^TH MAIN ROAD, 4^TH T BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA560041

¶11

REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR MR. V.S. CHANDRASHEKAR

¶12

Digitally signed by SHWETHA RAGHAVENDRA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

MR. V.S. CHANDRASHEKAR, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, S/O V.S. KUMAR R/O NO. 13, OLD NO. 370, 16^TH MAIN ROAD, 4^TH T BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA-560041

¶14

…PETITIONERS

¶15

(BY SRI. SREEVATSA, SR. ADVOCATE FOR SRI. PRATHITH H S., ADVOCATE)

¶16

AND:

¶17

STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY URBAN

¶18

2 -

¶19

NC: 2026:KHC:8218 WP No. 35767 of 2025

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VIKAS SOUDHA, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU 560001

¶22

THE COMMISSIONER GREATER BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY NO.1 ALI ASKER ROAD,

¶23

BENGALURU-560052.

¶24

TOWN PLANNING MEMBER GREATER BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY NO. 1 ALI ASKER ROAD, BENGALURU - 560052.

¶25

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

¶26

TOWN PLANNING MEMBER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY T. CHOWDIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST BENGALURU - 560020

¶27

…RESPONDENTS

¶28

(BY SRI. SPOORTHI V. HCGP; SRI. YOGESH D. NAIK, AVOCATE FOR R2 & R3; SRI. K.KRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR R4 & R5))

¶29

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INIDA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT BEARING NO.GBDA-/LAO/12/2025-26 DATED 17 10.2025 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3 VIDE ANNEXURE A AS THE SAME IS ARBITRARY AND BAD IN THE EYES OF LAW AND ETC.

¶30

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

¶31

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

¶32

3 -

¶33

NC: 2026:KHC:8218 WP No. 35767 of 2025

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

ORAL ORDER

¶36

Petitioners are before this Court seeking for the following

¶37

reliefs:

¶38

(a) To issue a Writ of Certiorari or any direction to quash the impugned endorsement bearing No.GBDA/LAO/12/2025-26 dated 17.10.2025 issued by the respondent No.3 vide Annexure-A as the same is arbitrary and bad in the eyes of law.

¶39

(b) To issue a writ of mandamus or any direction to consider the application bearing Ref No.SRPL/Kaggalipura-2/PKM/001/2025-26 dated 25.08.2025 vide Annexure-G preferred by the petitioner with the respondent No.3 within a period of 3 months.

¶40

(c) Grant such other relief as circumstances and contingencies may permit, in the interest of justice and equity.

¶41

Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 claim to be the owners of land in Survey Nos.93/6, 93/7, 94/1, 94/2, 94/3, 94/4 and 95 totally measuring 11 acres, 55 guntas, located at Kaggalipura Village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk. The said land has been converted for nonagricultural purposes, the petitioner made an application for approval of a development plan for residential apartment development on 25.08.2025 at Annexure-G. Respondent No.3 issued an endorsement to petitioner No.1 that the Bangalore Development Authority had proposed to create a layout in and around the said property and as such, the application for the development

¶42

4 -

¶43

NC: 2026:KHC:8218 WP No. 35767 of 2025

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

plan cannot be considered. It is in that background that the petitioner is before this Court challenging the said endorsement at Annexure-A and seeking for a mandamus to direct respondent Nos.2 and 3 to consider the issuance of the development plan.

¶46

A co-ordinate bench of this Court has considered the very same issue in its order dated 02.04.2025 in W.P.No.4217/2025 and has categorically come to a conclusion that it is the current and existing laws which are applicable, would have to be considered for the purpose of sanction and/or rejection of a development plan. A proposed layout by the BDA cannot be a ground for rejection of a development plan submitted by the petitioner at the present time. In that view of the matter, I pass the following:

¶47

ORDER

¶48

i. Writ petition is allowed .

¶49

ii. A certiorari is issued, the impugned endorsement bearing No.GBDA-/LAO/12/2025-26 dated 17.10.2025 issued by respondent No.3 at Annexure-A is quashed.

¶50

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:8218 WP No. 35767 of 2025

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

iii. A mandamus is issued directing respondent Nos.2 and 3 to consider the application filed by the petitioner on 25.08.2025 at Annexure-G in terms of the applicable rules and regulations as on today within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶53

SD/(SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE

¶54

GJM

¶55

List No.: 2 Sl No.: 28

Vsc Properties Private Limited v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vsc Properties Private Limited 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

G B Jagadeesh Vs the Chief Officer

Smt Shanthamma G Vs the Chief Election Commissioner

Sri Sanjeev Rao Vs the Principal Secretary

G K Devaraju Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Usha Mahesh Dasar Vs State of Karnataka

S Rangaswamy Vs the City (Town ) Municipal Commissioner